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: (i) Whether the appeal was barred by limitation by treating the earlier departmental letter as the relevant order. (ii) Whether the duty demands could be sustained in the absence of a show cause notice preceding the demand.
Issue (i): Whether the appeal was barred by limitation by treating the earlier departmental letter as the relevant order.
Analysis: The later communication dealt with the assessees' objections and, on the facts, had the character of an appealable order. Limitation was therefore to be computed from that communication and not from the earlier letter raising the demand.
Conclusion: The appeal was not time-barred and rejection on limitation was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the duty demands could be sustained in the absence of a show cause notice preceding the demand.
Analysis: No show cause notice as required by law was served before raising the demands. In the absence of such notice, the demands could not be upheld.
Conclusion: The duty demands were set aside, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal by the lower authority was set aside, the limitation objection was rejected, and the duty demands were annulled without remand.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a later departmental communication substantively answers the assessee's objections, it may be treated as the appealable order for computing limitation, and a demand raised without the legally required show cause notice is not sustainable.