9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the issue of invocation of extended period of limitation as well as the action being initiated after the extended period, invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Appeal disposed off. - C.M.A. No. 2364 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2017 - Dr. Anita Sumanth and Huluvadi G. Ramesh, JJ. Shri B. Venkataraman, Senior Counsel for J. Shankararaman, for the Appellant. Shri V. Sundareswaran, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.]. - The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai-6, dated 16-4-2009 in Final Order No. 449 of 2009 [2009 (246) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 2. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing cotton yarn falling under Tariff sub-heading 5205.11 to the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On account of labour unrest and financial constraints, it stopped its production activities and subsequently during the year 2000, the appellant Mill was taken over by M/s. CP Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., pursuant to which, manufacturing activities once again commenced. Thereafter, various MOUs were entered into between the parties, as per which, M/s. CP Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. had been sending the raw materials viz., cotton to the appellant s factory and it would receive back the cotton yarn from the appellant unit and therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,416/- under Rules 9(2), 52A, 173Q and 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 25 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 (erstwhile) and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The 2nd respondent also imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,75,00,000/- on Mr. P. Balakrishnan, Managing Director of M/s. CPSML; ₹ 10,00,000/- on Mr. P.K. Mahamune, Proprietor of Preetha Cotton Traders, Tirupur; ₹ 10,00,000/- on Mr. D. Krishnan, Proprietor of SP Trading company and ₹ 5,00,000/- on Mr. M. Kathiresan, Partner, Bhagavathi Yarns, Palladam under the Act. Aggrieved against the above said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the second respondent herein also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without payment of duty to some third parties, confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 2,90,92,416/- and imposed penalty of ₹ 2,79,92,416/- and demanded interest thereupon. Aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem, the appellant preferred appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the 1st respondent herein, who after having gone through the details of non-disclosure and non-payment of duty, proceeded to pass the impugned order. 7. It appears that in the course of discussion, with regard to non-disclosure having been found based on the materials available on record which were seized in the appellant premises, the department has issued a show cause notice imposing penalty equiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words one year , the words five years were substituted. 8. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the assessee has challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation and raised the specific ground among other grounds before the CESTAT in this regard. However, the order of the CESTAT does not reflect any findings on the point of extended period as raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
