9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, we note that there were conflicting views of different Benches of the Tribunal which came to be decided only with the issue of decision of the Larger Bench. Hence, it will not be fair on the part of the Revenue to take the view that appellant has suppressed the facts in the present case. The Revenue was not justified in invoking the suppression clause for making the demand for extended period - once the issue is settled on merits, the appellant will be liable to pay duty only for the period falling under the normal time limit from the date of issue of show-cause notice. Demand is upheld for the period falling with the normal time limit - adjudicating authority is directed to re-quantify the demand - appeal allowed in part. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Mahindra and Mahindra vs. Commissioner : 2005 (190) ELT 301 (Tri.-LB) reported in 18.11.2005. He submitted that the Larger Bench has settled the issue on merits against appellant but the decision was available to the appellant for complying only from that date. Accordingly, he submitted that Revenue was not justified in demanding the duty for the period prior to that date with the allegations of suppression. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR justified the impugned order. She submitted that the non-payment of excise duty was detected during the course of audit of the appellant, which was conducted in 2006. After such date, appellant was liable to make payment of excise duty but the same has not been done. 5. After hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icense was not taken out and/or duty not paid on account of any fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of fact. We, therefore, set aside the demand under the show-cause notice dated 3rd May 1993. In the light of the observations of the apex court, we are of the view that the Revenue was not justified in invoking the suppression clause for making the demand for extended period. We are of the view that once the issue is settled on merits, the appellant will be liable to pay duty only for the period falling under the normal time limit from the date of issue of show-cause notice. 5.2 In view of the above, the impugned order is modified and demand is upheld for the period falling with the normal time limit. The adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
