9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make the payment of balance duty together with interest - no intention to evade duty – however, it is not a fit case for penalty u/s 11AC X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment during period of 1997 to 2001 i.e. period of impugned demand and no objection was raised by the Auditing Officers during course of Audit of the factory records so conducted. Therefore, he held that it may not be the case of wilful suppression or misstatement of facts by assessee to invoke extended time period clause under Section 11A(1) of the Act and to invoke Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Act, Therefore, he held the impugned demand as barred by limitation and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the respondents. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 7. I find that the case relates to the periods 1997-98 to 1999-2000. I also note that there were conflict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T) in which it was held that the assessee cannot plead 'no suppression' on the ground that the Excise Officers visited their factory number of times unless there is something on record to show that they pointed out some fact to Revenue and then even after the discovery of that fact, Revenue had not taken any action. I am afraid that the ratio of this case law cannot be applied to the facts of the present case because the issue of inclusion of the amortization cost was itself debatable during 1997-98 to 1999-2000 because of the conflicting judgments and it came to be resolved only on 16-3-2000 by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. cited supra. 9. The respondents' representative, who appeared before me for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
