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 extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A could be invoked without a specific averment in the show cause notice alleging fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 11A enlarges the normal six-month limitation only where the demand is founded on one of the specific defaults mentioned in that proviso. A notice seeking to rely on the extended period must therefore inform the assessee which particular allegation is relied upon, so that the assessee has an opportunity to meet that case. Mere non-declaration of a waste or by-product in the classification list, without an express allegation of intentional evasion or suppression, is insufficient to sustain invocation of the extended period. In the absence of such averments in the show cause notice, the departmental action could not be justified under the proviso.
Conclusion: The extended limitation was not available to the Revenue, and the demand based on the impugned notice could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the assessee succeeded on the limitation issue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue seeks to invoke the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A, the show cause notice must specifically plead the particular statutory ground attracting that proviso; absent such pleading, the extended period cannot be applied.