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 demand of central excise duty could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation, or whether only the normal limitation period of six months under section 11A applied.
Analysis: The show cause notice covered clearances for a period far beyond six months. The enlargement of limitation from six months to five years was treated as a drastic step requiring clear and specific allegations in the notice itself. The notice did not clearly set out the material facts or reasons necessary to justify the extended period, nor did it allege clandestine removal in a manner sufficient to support such invocation. The records showed annual declarations, maintenance of accounts and departmental awareness of the manufacture and clearances, so the facts did not support a case of concealment or suppression. Mere reference to rules such as Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q was held insufficient, on these facts, to justify extension of limitation.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. The demand was confined to the normal period of six months, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period under section 11A can be invoked only when the show cause notice clearly alleges and supports suppression or other legally sufficient grounds; in the absence of such pleading and material, the normal limitation period governs.