Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the third show cause notice and adjudication were barred by limitation under the extended period in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in the absence of suppression, misstatement, fraud, or wilful intent to evade duty.
Analysis: The material facts relating to transfer of goods between the two 100% EOUs, the DTA permissions, the invoices, and the RT-13 returns were already on record and within the knowledge of the Department during the earlier proceedings. The same factual foundation had been examined in prior adjudications and the controversy on duty liability had already been decided earlier. On these facts, the later proceeding was merely a reappraisal of the same material and could not be sustained as a case of suppression or wilful misstatement. The settled principle applied was that when all primary facts are fully and truly disclosed, reopening on a mere change of opinion is not permissible, and the extended limitation under Section 11A cannot be invoked without positive evidence of deliberate evasion.
Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(1) was not justified and the adjudication was time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: Reopening of excise proceedings on the same disclosed facts is impermissible absent fresh material establishing deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty.