1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Tribunal Upholds Duty Recovery & Penalty for Central Excise Violations</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Additional Collector's decision in the case involving M/s. Vishwa Industrial Works, confirming duty recovery and penalty for ... Demands - Period of limitation Issues:1. Barred by time - Show cause notice issued more than 6 months after disclosure of facts.2. Wilful suppression of facts - Department's entitlement to a 5-year period for enforcement.3. Exclusion of goods exported from duty calculation.4. Correct quantification of excess clearances liable for duty.Analysis:1. The case involved a show cause notice issued to M/s. Vishwa Industrial Works for manufacturing and clearing goods without observing Central Excise formalities. The notice proposed duty recovery and penalty for the period from 1-4-1978 to 10-4-1979. The Additional Collector confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, leading to the appeal.2. The appellants argued that the show cause notice was time-barred as all facts were disclosed on 4-4-1979. The Department contended that wilful suppression of facts allowed a 5-year enforcement period. The Tribunal found that until 4-4-1979, the appellants had suppressed facts, justifying the 5-year enforcement period for duty recovery.3. Regarding duty calculation, the appellants claimed that goods exported should be deducted before applying statutory exemptions. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods were cleared for home consumption, not direct export by the appellants. The claim for exclusion of exported goods from duty calculation was rejected.4. The Tribunal upheld the Additional Collector's quantification of excess clearances liable for duty, except for modifying the demand to exclude clearances between 4-4-1979 to 10-4-1979. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the modification in duty demand being the only alteration to the original order.