9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Act or Central Excise Rules with intent to evade payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has rightly held that once it came to the notice of the Department that the products were not P or P medicine, show cause notice for the subsequent period should have been issued from time to time within the normal limitation period. The reliance of the Department on the decision in the case of Nizam Sugar [ 1999 (10) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] does not help the Revenue s case since what was held by the Larger Bench in Nizam Sugar case was that any show cause notice issued beyond the period of six months from the date of acquiring knowledge will not be barred by limitation, if the duty has not been levied or not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cines were appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 as P or P medicine; that a show cause notice dated 4-8-2000 was issued to them for demanding the duty for the period from August, 1995 to February, 2000; that the Additional Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 44/2002, dated 23-12-2002, confirmed the demand after classifying the impugned products under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff besides imposing equal amount of penalty; that on Appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has upheld the classification of the impugned product; that however, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that extended period of limitation prior to discovery of the facts by the officer could be invoked and as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 73 (Tri.)] that once the Department was aware of the facts the extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue for demanding the duty from 30-4-96; that the Tribunal has relied upon the decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra); that in the said decision also, the Tribunal has held that the extended period of limitation would be invocable for the period prior to 30-4-96; that the said decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as Appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Excise has been dismissed by the Supreme Court after condoning the delay vide Order dated 7-5-03 in Civil Appeal No. Nil of 2003 (D.No. 7145/2003) [2004 (171) E.L.T. A82 (S.C.)]. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me within the normal limitation period. The reliance of the Department on the decision in the case of Nizam Sugar does not help the Revenue's case since what was held by the Larger Bench in Nizam Sugar case was that "any show cause notice issued beyond the period of six months from the date of acquiring knowledge will not be barred by limitation, if the duty has not been levied or not paid or short-paid or short-levied or erroneously paid by reason of fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts .... and the show cause notice has been issued within 5 years from the relevant date as defined under sub-section (3) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act." This does not mean that the extended period of limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
