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 the duty demand on the intermediate product was barred by limitation for want of suppression of facts, and whether the consequent question sought to be referred to the High Court arose as a question of law.
Analysis: The Revenue could not plead ignorance of the manufacturing process when the assessee's classification list and price list were before it for approval. On those facts, the finding that the process of manufacture was not disclosed did not survive. The demand having been raised beyond the stipulated period of six months, the extended period could not be invoked. Once the demand was held time-barred, penalty was also unsustainable. The finding on limitation was treated as one of fact based on the overall circumstances, and the proposed reference did not raise a question of law.
Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred, the penalty was set aside, and the application for reference was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on limitation, while the Revenue's attempt to obtain reference failed because no referable question of law arose.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue is aware, or is deemed to be aware, of the manufacturing process from the approved classification and price lists, suppression of facts cannot be inferred and the extended limitation period is unavailable.