TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the demand for the period beyond six months was sustainable on the ground of suppression of facts so as to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed for contravention of the classification and removal requirements could be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether the demand for the period beyond six months was sustainable on the ground of suppression of facts so as to justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.
Analysis: The assessee had earlier informed the department that it was registered with the D.G.T.D. and had enclosed the registration certificate. That communication remained effective as departmental knowledge, and the mere passage of time or change of officers did not erase it. On these facts, the allegation of suppression could not be sustained, and the extended period could not be invoked.
Conclusion: The demand beyond six months was set aside and the assessee succeeded on limitation.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed for contravention of the classification and removal requirements could be sustained.
Analysis: The penalty was founded on contravention of Rules 173B and 173F. In view of the failure to establish suppression and the uncertainty as to whether the omission was deliberate, the penalty was considered not fit to be upheld in the existing form.
Conclusion: The penalty was remitted to the adjudicating authority.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the issue of suppression and limitation, the demand for the time-barred period was disallowed, the penalty was not sustained as imposed, and the matter was sent back for recomputation of duty on the surviving demand.
Ratio Decidendi: Prior disclosure of a material fact to the department constitutes departmental knowledge and defeats an allegation of suppression for invoking the extended period of limitation.
TaxTMI 
