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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the facts relating to control samples cleared under Notification No. 171/70-C.E.
Analysis: The majority held that the assessee had filed the classification list claiming exemption, the list had been approved, and daily production reports were being filed. Relying on the earlier Tribunal decision in a materially similar situation, it was held that there was no basis to allege clandestine removal, suppression of facts, or wilful misstatement so as to justify the longer limitation period. Since the demand was raised for a period substantially earlier than the show cause notice, the demand was treated as time-barred and the merits were not examined.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue and the demand was held to be time-barred, in favour of the assessee.
Dissenting Opinion: S.K. Bhatnagar, President, took the view that merely marking the packs as control samples was insufficient, that the packing was not shown to be distinctly different from trade packing, and that the assessee had not placed all material facts before the department. On that view, the demand was not time-barred and the appeal was rejected.
TaxTMI 
