2014 (11) TMI 862 - HC - Central Excise

Bombay HC Appeal: Suppression Evidence 2003-2004, Limitation Period, Admitted

The Bombay HC admitted the appeal of the Assessee and Revenue. The case involves determining if there was suppression despite evidence submitted by the ... Manufacture of turpentine oil and rosin – assessee claimed nil rate of duty on the ground that the same are manufactured without the aid of power and also demands are time-barred - Bombay high Court admitted the appeal of the Revenue against the decision of Tribunal [2011 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] on the following substantial questions of law :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the demand for extended period of limitation ? Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there is no suppression in view of the fact that there was a flow chart submitted by the Respondent way back in the year 2003 and 2004 when the said communication is after the visit of the officers of the Revenue? The Bombay High Court admitted the appeal of the Assessee and also admitted the appeals of the Revenue. The substantial questions of law include setting aside the demand for extended period of limitation and determining if there was suppression despite a flow chart submitted by the Respondent in 2003 and 2004.