1992 (7) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Respondents. [Order per: P.K. Kapoor, Member (T)]. - This miscellaneous application has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35C(2) seeking the rectification of mistake in order No. E/140/91-B1 holding the entire demand for Rs. 3,58,303.20 issued on 29-2-1988 in respect of goods cleared between 1-4-1987 to 23-12-1987 as time barred on the grounds that there was no evidence of any wilf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred to para 15 of the order under reference wherein it had been held that on the basis of the facts of the case the department was not free to invoke the extended period for raising the demand under the proviso to Section 11A. He added that in view of this finding the Tribunal ought to have held that the demand for the period August, 1987 onwards, being within the normal period of 6 months was e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal's order setting aside the entire demand. He added that there being no error apparent on record in the order passed by the Tribunal it cannot be revised under Section 35C(L). In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram I. T. Officer v. Volkart Brothers, reported in AIR 1971 S.C. 2204 and also the judgment in the case of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... we had arrived at the finding that there being no evidence of any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the appellants, it was not open to the department to invoke the extended period of limitation in terms of proviso to Section 11A. In view of these findings it is evident that the order passed by us in para 17(ii) setting aside the demand issued on 29-2-1988 for Rs. 3,58,303.20 in resp....