9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the order of the respondent No. 3 the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, the respondent No. 2, under Section 35B of the Act. The said appeal is pending consideration. 3. The petitioner also applied under Section 35F of the Act for dispensing with the requirement of depositing the duty demanded from it. 4. The respondent No. 2, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the question of undue hardship, as envisaged by the proviso to Section 35F, came to the conclusion that if the applicant was desired to deposit the entire duty and penalty it would amount to undue hardship. It, therefore, dispensed with the requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unjust. 8. Short answer to the argument of Shri Mathur with regard to the plea of limitation is that the review petition was predominantly founded on the ground that the financial position of the petitioner was not correctly appreciated. The question of limitation against the recovery of the duty of excise was never specifically pleaded in the review petition. Also there was no plea set up that the question of limitation was not considered by the Tribunal while passing the order sought to be reviewed. Only a cursory and faint suggestion that "the demands were time barred" was made in paragraph 5 of the petition. Moreover, the impugned order does not indicate that the plea of limitation was pressed during the course of arguments before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration of the entire relevant material on record a finding of fact has been recorded by her to the effect that the petitioner manufactured and cleared the goods without obtaining Central Excise Licence and without complying the provisions of law with an intent to evade the payment of Central Excise duty. Further finding is that the party did not disclose the manufacture of excisable goods falling under sub-heading 2107.91 and suppressed the material evidence in respect thereof. On these finding the proviso to Section 11 A of the Act envisaging the period of limitation to be five years from the relevant date is surely attracted. 11. Shri Mathur made a feeble attempt to persuade us to hold that the aforesaid findings are perverse. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
