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: Whether the extended period of limitation under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts and misstatement in relation to Modvat credit on paper reinforced bags.
Analysis: The appellant had declared the inputs in its Modvat declaration and had also filed the relevant invoices with monthly RT-12 returns, which were accepted by the department. The bags were described in the trade and in the records as paper reinforced bags, and the material on record did not establish deliberate concealment of the correct description to evade duty. The impugned order also relied on a supplier's statement without giving cross-examination, which weakened the evidentiary basis for alleging suppression. In these circumstances, the ingredients required for invoking the longer limitation period were not made out.
Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was unsustainable and the limitation objection succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand failed on limitation, and the appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period cannot be invoked unless the department proves deliberate suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, especially where the assessee has disclosed the relevant facts in declarations and returns.
TaxTMI 
