9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of time itself that NCCD is required to be paid by them. The fact of non-payment of NCCD was writ clear on the said returns, in which case the observations of the appellate authority that the appellant never approached the Revenue by seeking clarification on payment of NCCD cannot be appreciated. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of C.Ex., Bombay [1995 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has observed that extended period is not applicable just for any omission of assessee unless it is deliberate to escape from payment of duty. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that expression “suppression of facts” in proviso to section 11A(1) is to be interpreted strictly because it has been use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appellant s factory, it was found that the appellant was not paying NCCD on clearance of their manufactured goods w.e.f. April, 2007 onwards. Inasmuch as the Notification in question exempted only duty of excise or additional duty of excise, the officers entertained a view that NCCD is not exempted in terms of the said Notification and as such the appellant is required to pay NCCD on their final product. The appellant agreed with the above view of the department and paid NCCD totally amounting to ₹ 4,96,014/- for the period 01.05.2010 to 30.04.2011 i.e. for the period of one year. As regards the period prior to 01.05.2010, the appellant took a stand that the same would be barred by limitation inasmuch as the appellant was enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to properly assess the goods for payment of duties leviable thereon; non-payment of NCCD was disguised by the appellant under false impression that they were exempt from payment of all duties ; that in the returns filed by them to their range officer, they have mentioned the prevalent excise duty and cess only in the column of duty forgone and did not make any mention of NCCD in their returns/reports submitted to the range office; that no reasonable steps were taken by the appellant to ascertain the situation regarding leviability of NCCD on their product and they have never approached the department at any stage to make sure that what they were doing was the right thing. He has further observed that the appellant did not pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoke the larger limitation of five years. The department, if had full knowledge of a particular development, the extended period cannot be invoked. To the same effect is another decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of C.Ex., Bombay [1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)] wherein it was observed that extended period is not applicable just for any omission of assessee unless it is deliberate to escape from payment of duty. The Hon ble Apex Court further observed that expression suppression of facts in proviso to section 11A(1) is to be interpreted strictly because it has been used in company of such strong words as fraud, collusion or willful default etc., where facts are known to bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
