Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (3) TMI 1496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Commr.(A)/234/VDR/98 dated 25.02.1998 dropped the demand. In this fact, the appellant has a bonofide belief that in view of Commissioner (appeals) order, their case stand decided in their favour, therefore, for subsequent period demand notice issued invoking extended period is clearly hit by time limit as prescribed under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue despite the recurring nature of the issue delayed, the issuance of SCN involved in the present appeals. There is no suppression of fact, mis-declaration, collusion, fraud on the part of the appellant in the facts and circumstance of the present case, therefore, the demand for the extended period in every SCN involved in the present case is not sustainabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e submits that prior to aforesaid order in appeal dated 27.08.2004, there were following 2 favourable orders in appeal: i. Order in appeal No. 533/96 (80-BRD)CE/AHD/Coll(A) dated 28.11.1990 covering the Period: 1.6.1987 to 30.09.1987 1.10.1987 to 18.12.1987; and ii. Order in appeal No. Commr.(A)/234/VDR/98 dated 25.02.98 covering the period: 13.06.1994 onwards. He submits that the first order in appeal dated 28.11.1990 was never appealed against by the department and hence it attained finality, the second favourable order in appeal dated 25.02.1998 appears to have been appealed against but the appeals remains pending before the Tribunal. He submits that in view of the above subsequential proceedings on the issue of classification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ents 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC) Cosmic Dye Chemicals 1995 (6) RLT 333 (SC) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC) 3. It is significant that in case of Appeal No. E/864/2010, even when the appellant furnished the information on 28.02.1997, the SCN came to be issued only after 2 years, i.e. on 16.02.1999, whereas the normal limitation period was 6 months. Moreover, the department s request letters were themselves dated 06.02.1997 and 21.02.1997 which the appellant replied in the same month of Feb, 1997 i.e. on 28.02.1997. Similarly in case of Appeal No. E/862/2010, the SCN dated 01.03.2002 was issued 1 year after the appellant furnished the information on 21.03.2001. The above factual data conclusively proves that cruci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this regard, we find that the case which was decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court covered the period February 2001 to November 2002. In the present case, the period involved is March 1994 to August 1996, November 1997 to January 2011 and December2002 to February 2004. It is observed that the issue involved in the present case has been disputed right from the year 1987 and for the period 01.06.1987 to 30.09.1987 and 01.10.1987 to 08.12.1987 by order in Appeal No. 533/96 (80-BRD) CE/AHD/COLL (A) dated 28.11.1990., the case was decided in favour of the appellant. For the subsequent period from 13.06.1994 onwards Commissioner (appeals) vide order in Appeal No. Commr.(A)/234/VDR/98 dated 25.02.1998 dropped the demand. In this fact, the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at once on the particular issue, SCN was issued, for the subsequent period, SCN for the extended period cannot be issued. 6. We are therefore, of the view that there is no suppression of fact, mis-declaration, collusion, fraud on the part of the appellant in the facts and circumstance of the present case, therefore, the demand for the extended period in every SCN involved in the present case is not sustainable. However, if any demand pertains to the normal period, the same is liable to be confirmed and recovered from the appellant. Since there is no suppression of fact, the appellant is also not liable for any penalty, accordingly, the penalty is set aside. The impugned orders are modified to the above extent and appeals are disposed of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates