9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la fide intention to evade the payment of duty. The appellant has declared the non-payment of duty for the month of March 2000 in the return filed by them. They have not suppressed any information from the Department. The Show Cause Notice was issued by invoking the proviso under Section 11A on the ground that the appellant had deliberately not paid Central Excise Duty. No suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty exists in this case. The appellant has declared all the information in their RT-12 return and the Notice has also been issued upon scrutiny of the RT-12 return filed by the appellant for the month of March 2000. Accordingly, the extended period of limitation as provided under proviso to Section 11A is not invokab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r month. The present dispute is related to non-payment of duty fixed for the month of March 2000. 3. The appellant submits that their factory was closed for the entire month of March 2000 and thus they did not pay the duty as fixed under Rule 96ZP (3) of the Rules. It is also submitted by the appellant that in terms of proviso to sub-section (3) to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no duty is payable if the factory is closed for seven days or more; since their factory was closed for the entire month, the appellant submits that no duty is payable by them. 3.1. They further submit that the demand has been made by invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 alleging suppression of fact with intention to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6ZP (3) is legally tenable. Hence, he argued that the impugned demand is not hit by limitation. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We observe that the appellant has been paying duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme @ Rs.5,08,173/- per month as fixed by the Ld. Commissioner. In the month of March 2000, they have not paid the duty since, as contended, their factory was closed for the entire month. This fact has been duly reflected in the RT-12 return filed by them for the month of March 2000. Accordingly, the appellant contends that the Notice issued on 13.11.2001 demanding duty payable for the month of March 2000 is barred by limitation. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the provisions of Section 11A ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty for the month of March 2000 in the return filed by them. They have not suppressed any information from the Department. The Show Cause Notice was issued by invoking the proviso under Section 11A on the ground that the appellant had deliberately not paid Central Excise Duty. We observe that no suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty exists in this case. The appellant has declared all the information in their RT-12 return and the Notice has also been issued upon scrutiny of the RT-12 return filed by the appellant for the month of March 2000. Accordingly, we are of the view that the extended period of limitation as provided under proviso to Section 11A is not invokable in the present case. 6.3. However, we observe that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
