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

2025 (1) TMI 1371

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... suppliers of raw materials, the Show Cause Notice dated 16.04.2014 relating to the period June 2009 to December 2010 came to be issued. It is also asserted that the said agency had looked into the ER - 1 Returns, Books of Account including balance sheet, etc. and, at no point of time did they raise any query as regards the alleged removal of TMT bars or billets without payment of duty. From the OIO, it is found that the Authority has tried to negate the above contention on the ground that the DGCEI's case was based on specific intelligence to the effect of the assessee taking credit without actual receipt of material as against which, the present case was one of clandestine removal; and therefore, the extended time limit has been correctly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessee through various letters, but non response by the assessee to the above reminders prompted the Revenue to assume that the assessee had clandestinely cleared the goods without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty in contravention of Rules 4, 6 and 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Thus, a Show Cause Notice dated 16.04.2014 came to be issued by invoking the extended time limit under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 thereby proposing to demand the differential duty apart from applicable interest and penalty. It appears that the appellant filed its reply to the SCN interalia stating that they supplied TMT bars for RNS Infrastructure Limited against certificate No. TNRSP/04/38 dated 08.06.2009 valued at Rs.37,08,449/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sustainable"? 5. From the documents placed on record, in the reply to the SCN, it is revealed that during the visit of the officers of DGCEI in 2010 and subsequent resumption of records from JFSPL and its suppliers of raw materials, the Show Cause Notice dated 16.04.2014 relating to the period June 2009 to December 2010 came to be issued. It is also asserted that the said agency had looked into the ER - 1 Returns, Books of Account including balance sheet, etc. and, at no point of time did they raise any query as regards the alleged removal of TMT bars or billets without payment of duty. From the OIO, I find that the Authority has tried to negate the above contention on the ground that the DGCEI's case was based on specific intelligence to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability, before the period of six months. Whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the facts referred to hereinbefore do not warrant any inference of fraud. The assessee declared the goods on the basis of their belief of the interpretation of the provisions of the law that the exempted goods were not required to be included and these did not include the value of the exempted goods which they manufactured at th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t by limitation" 7. It is clear that the time limit would start ticking when the Revenue came to know about the manufacturing activity of the appellant and that was the time when the show cause notice should have been issued and the Revenue having failed to do so, they cannot therefore allege suppression on the part of the appellant and invoke the extended time limit. Hence, the ratio of the said order is squarely applicable here also, in the case on hand, since from the date of visit/verification of records by DGCI in 2010 and the date of SCN, more than three years have lapsed. Hence, the same clearly is hit by the time limitation. 8. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal on limitation alone. ( Order pronounce .....

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