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 extended limitation for show cause notice, validates misdeclaration allegations, upholds excise duty demands</h1> <h3>M/s. Velvelite International Pharma Product Versus Commissioner of GST & CCE Chennai (South)</h3> M/s. Velvelite International Pharma Product Versus Commissioner of GST & CCE Chennai (South) - TMI Issues involved:1. Extended limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act for a show cause notice.2. Allegations of misdeclaration of the process of manufacture and formula of a product.3. Validity of supplementary show cause notice issued.Extended limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act for a show cause notice:The High Court of Madras considered the appeal by M/s.Velvette International Pharma Product against the order of the CESTAT regarding the extended limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act. The Court analyzed the facts and circumstances, including the date of inspection by officers, the date of the show cause notice, and the supplementary show cause notice. The Court found that the show cause notice was within the extended limitation period as per the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1994. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the demand was not time-barred, and the charge of suppression was rightly proved by the authorities.Allegations of misdeclaration of the process of manufacture and formula of a product:The Court examined the allegations that the appellants had misdeclared the process of manufacture and formula of the product, suppressing the use of non-ayurvedic ingredients. It was claimed that this misdeclaration was with the intention to evade payment of duty, leading to the invocation of the extended time limit under Section 11A(1) of the Act. The Court upheld these allegations, stating that the misdeclaration and suppression were valid reasons for invoking the extended period of limitation. The Court emphasized that the date of inspection by officers did not affect the period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice.Validity of supplementary show cause notice issued:Regarding the supplementary show cause notice issued, the Court clarified that it did not change the quantum of excise duty demanded in the original notice but added a demand for Special Excise Duty. The Court found that the supplementary notice was well within the extended period of limitation invoked. The Court rejected the objections raised by the appellants regarding the supplementary notice, affirming that the date of inspection did not impact the validity of the notice. The Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, allowing the authorities to decide on the issues raised by the appellants in accordance with the law.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved and the detailed reasoning provided by the High Court of Madras in reaching its decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
