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, on the facts of the case, the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the basis of alleged suppression of facts when earlier show cause notices on the same or similar facts had already been issued.
Analysis: The relevant facts relating to the clearance and manufacture of impure carbon dioxide were already within the knowledge of the departmental authorities when the first show cause notice was issued. The subsequent notices proceeded on the same or similar factual foundation. In such a situation, the same facts could not be treated as suppression by the assessee so as to justify invocation of the extended limitation period. The Court followed the earlier decisions holding that once the department was aware of the material facts, a later notice on the same facts could not rest on suppression for extending limitation.
Conclusion: The plea of suppression failed and the extended period of limitation was not available. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the department had already been made aware of the material facts through an earlier show cause notice, a later notice on the same or similar facts cannot invoke the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression of facts.