9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the limitation provided under-Section 11A is applicable also to Section 11D as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras the impugned demand is hopelessly barred by limitation. In the circumstances the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. - E/161/2006 - 1353/2008 - Dated:- 27-11-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) None, for the Appellant. Shri V. V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal filed by M/s. Tamilnadu Asbestos (Pipes), Karur challenges an order of demand of Rs. 7,05,592/- under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. M/s. Tamilnadu Asbestos had collected during the period 1998-2000, a total amount of Rs. 7,05,592/- from the buyers of its final product asbestos c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Mad.) It is argued that no limitation was prescribed in Section 11D of the Act to raise a demand under that section. In Citadal Fine Pharmaceutical case (supra), the Apex Court had held that "in the absence of any period of limitation, it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within the reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case". In CCE v. Electronics Research Ltd. (supra) and CC v. TVS Whirlpool Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that in the absence of any limitation period for demanding interest on customs duty payable under Section 61(3) of Customs Act, 1962, for warehoused goods, the period laid down in Section 28 is to be applied. In Siddeshwar SSK Ltd. v. CCE (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect from 20-09-1991 among others provided that the person liable to pay any amount under that Section should be issued with a show-cause notice before a demand is ordered in terms of that Section. But for the above change, as regards time limit to issue demand notice, the Section basically continues to be the same as considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Gem Cables Conductors (supra). There is no dispute that the demand relating to the period 1998-2000 was proposed to be confirmed against the party in a show-cause notice dated 22-06-2005 and that the show-cause notice was issued beyond the five years time prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. Considering the limitation provided under-Section 11A is applicable also to Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
