TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court affirms Tribunal ruling on unpaid duty recovery time limit, stresses evidence requirement.</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & ST., DAMAN Versus TULSIANI BUILDER & TEXTILE PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & ST., DAMAN Versus TULSIANI BUILDER & TEXTILE PVT. LTD. - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 451 (Guj.) Issues:1. Whether the Tribunal erred in deciding the appeal on the question of limitation without giving any finding on the merit of the caseRs.2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the extended period of limitation prescribed under the first proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invokedRs.3. Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal of the revenueRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal revolved around the extended period of limitation for recovering unpaid duty. The Revenue sought to apply the extended period due to alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty by the respondent. The Appellate Commissioner initially ruled in favor of the assessee, leading the Revenue to approach the Tribunal. After a remand from the High Court, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish a case for extended limitation, as the department was aware of the relevant facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the demand was time-barred, as the show cause notice was issued in 2003, and the issue of limitation was raised at all levels. The Tribunal concluded that the demand could not be sustained due to the time limitation, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.Issue 2:The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in not granting the extended period of limitation based on a previous court decision. However, the Tribunal found that the foundational fact of clandestine removal was not established. It noted that the appellant was not eligible for a concessional rate of duty due to manufacturing dyed yarn before a specified date. The Tribunal concluded that there was no fraud or suppression of facts to evade duty, leading to the decision that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on factual findings and the application of statutory provisions to the case.Issue 3:While the Revenue contended that the Tribunal should have granted the extended period of limitation, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's view that the entire issue was not free from doubt, and the Appellate Commissioner's initial stance in favor of the assessee was not sustainable. The Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, emphasizing that once the necessary facts for the extended period of limitation are established, the timing of initiating proceedings becomes irrelevant. The Court disagreed with any contrary observations in the Tribunal's order and affirmed the Tribunal's decision.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the factual findings and the lack of evidence supporting the application of the extended period of limitation. The Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, stating that the timing of initiating proceedings is not crucial once the relevant facts are established.
TaxTMI 