Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invocable on the facts of the case.
Analysis: The show cause notice covered the period from March 2010 to May 2011 but was issued in August 2014. The appellant had been filing regular ER-1 returns and declaring the clearances and invoice value. The record did not show any fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or other deliberate conduct with intent to evade duty. The legal requirement for invoking the extended period is the existence of one of the statutory ingredients coupled with intent to evade duty, and the burden lies on the Revenue to establish the same. In the absence of any material showing a conscious withholding of information or other mala fide conduct, the extended limitation could not be applied.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was time-barred.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed on the ground of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The extended period under Section 11A(4) can be invoked only when the Revenue proves fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty; regular disclosure and absence of deliberate concealment bar invocation of the extended period.