9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent regarding supply of goods under EPCG licence and filed the re-warehousing certificate, the allegation of suppression, fraud, etc. cannot be leveled against the appellant justifying the issuance of show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation - demand confined to normal period - since there is no suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, the penalty cannot be imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Trade Policy (FTP) 2009-14. According to para 8.2.3 of the said Policy, a certificate from EPCG authorization holder, evidencing receipt of capital goods was also submitted to the excise authorities. Clearance of the vehicles under FTP without payment of duty was objected to by the Department on the ground that the supplies were not effected against International Competitive Bidding (ICB). Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no element of fraud, collusion, suppression, etc. in this case with intent to evade payment of central excise duty and, therefore, the show cause notice should have been issued within the normal period of one year. It is his submission that since the show cause notice was issued by invoking extended period of limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. 6. We find that the disputed goods were cleared by the appellant under ARE-3 procedures as laid down in Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. We find that the appellant in ARE-3 form had categorically mentioned that supplies of the disputed goods are to the holder of EPCG licence. Further, the appellant had enclosed the re-warehousing certificate before the jurisdictional Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Department has been informed of the non-duty paid clearance along with reason. The error of non-payment is attributable to appellant. However, it cannot be said that the Department is not party to such error and had no knowledge at the relevant time. 7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the demand should be confined to the normal period. However, since there is no suppression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
