9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the detection, the same is completely time barred and no penalty is imposable in such circumstances in the absence of demand. On merit too, the Department has not done any investigation to corroborate its charge of clandestine removal and has proposed the penalties without any corroborative evidence of clandestine removal. The entire demand is based on assumptions and presumptions bereft of any evidence. The show cause notice for the penalties solely on the basis of declaration of cash and stock six and half years back without furnishing any corroborative evidence of clandestine removal is clearly not sustainable. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on limitation as well as on merit - appeal allowed. - APPEAL NO. E/60672/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts have filed this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the Income Tax survey was done on 01.09.2006, wherein the surrender of the cash as well as the stock was made. He points out that the show cause notice has been issued on 22.04.2013 after a gap of six and half years and the same is therefore time barred. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Alloys Castings Ltd. vs. CCE 2002 (142) ELT 515 (SC). He also pleaded that the Department had raised the show cause notice having penal action without raising a demand. He also contended that the show cause notice is based on assumptions and presumptions and was not sustainable. In this regard, he relied on the judgment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding on this important aspect. Since the show cause notice has been issued more than five years after the detection, the same is completely time barred and no penalty is imposable in such circumstances in the absence of demand. In this regard, the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Alloys Castings Ltd. (supra) reproduced below is directly applicable to the facts of this case: The Tribunal has, by the impugned order, upheld the imposition of penalty, though it has reduced it, after holding that the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue, quashing the demand for duty and holding that the appellant had nothing to gain by evading the payment of duty. The imposition of penalty, under these circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
