TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dispute over duty liability exceeding exemption limit; duty demand confirmed, penalty upheld.</h1> The case involved a dispute over liability to pay duty on goods exceeding the exemption limit under the SSI exemption scheme. The respondents voluntarily ... Demand - Limitation Issues:1. Liability to pay duty on goods exceeding exemption limit.2. Invocation of extended period of limitation.3. Wilful suppression of facts.4. Challenge to order of Commissioner (Appeals).5. Confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition.Analysis:1. The case involved the liability of the respondents to pay duty on goods exceeding the exemption limit under the SSI exemption scheme. The respondents voluntarily disclosed the excess clearance value after the financial year 1996-97, which led to the department issuing a show cause notice demanding duty and penalty. The original authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q for suppression of facts. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the order of the lower authority, leading to the Revenue's appeal.2. The appellant challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order on duty and penalty grounds, citing the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision to support the invocation of the extended period of limitation. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no wilful suppression by the respondents as they had voluntarily disclosed the non-payment of duty upon crossing the exemption limit. The adjudicating authority also upheld this finding, which was not contested by the department. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was deemed hit by res judicata due to the conclusive finding of 'no suppression.'3. As the finding of 'no suppression' was beyond challenge, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was affirmed, ruling out the invocation of the extended period of limitation based on suppression. Despite this, the respondents had expressed willingness to pay the duty even before the original authority, with the acknowledgment of duty liability recorded in the order-in-original. Therefore, the demand of duty was confirmed, not barred by time, and the respondents were directed to pay within three months. The impugned order was set aside regarding the duty demand and upheld concerning the penalty, resulting in the disposal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
