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 of duty on diesel generating sets assembled and installed at site was barred by limitation under the extended period, in the absence of suppression and in view of the Board circular and the assessee's bona fide belief.
Analysis: The demand turned on the applicability of the extended period under Section 11A. The assessee maintained that the goods were believed to be immovable property and that a Board circular had clarified that generating sets erected at site were not liable to duty, so there was no intention to evade duty. The departmental officers were shown to have been visiting the factory and were aware of the activity. The Tribunal relied on the earlier reasoning that, where excisability was doubtful and the assessee could legitimately claim bona fide belief, mere non-payment did not amount to suppression. On those facts, the longer limitation could not be invoked.
Conclusion: The demand beyond six months was time-barred and the extended period was not invocable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: When duty liability is doubtful and the assessee acts under a bona fide belief supported by departmental circulars and departmental knowledge of the activity, the extended limitation period under Section 11A cannot be invoked absent wilful suppression of facts.