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 demand was barred by limitation and whether invocation of the extended period was justified on the basis of suppression of facts.
Analysis: The relevant facts relating to fabrication, erection and installation of the silos, tank and piping were already within the knowledge of the excise officers and were supported by contemporaneous statements and records. The notice was issued more than two years after the information had been furnished. On the facts, the structurals were of such a nature that their fabrication and erection could not be concealed, and there was a genuine basis for the belief that the goods, as finally erected, were immovable and not dutiable. The grounds for alleging deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty were therefore not established.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available and the demand was time-barred; the finding of suppression was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside on limitation, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the department already possesses the material facts and the record supports a bona fide belief against duty liability, the extended period cannot be invoked in the absence of proved suppression with intent to evade duty.