1999 (12) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. 2. The representative of the appellant does not dispute the liability to duty on merits. He also does not dispute the application of the proviso to Section 11A for part of the period on the ground of suppression of material facts, that the value of components supplied by the manufacturer to whom the appellant a job worker, returned the finished goods, was not included in the assessable value. What he disputes is the applicability of the proviso contained in Section 11A(1) for the period from 24-6-1989 to 31-3-1990. On 24-6-1989, he says, the fact of omission of the value of the components was brought to the notice of the department by Babubhai Patel, one of the partners....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppression or mis-statement of facts by the assessee with an intent to evade duty, the entire period of five years from the relevant date will be available to the department and that period cannot be reduced to a period of six months from the department's coming to know of the suppression. The question before us however is not that. The proviso to Section 11A makes available the extended period of five years where any duty had not been levied or not paid or short levied or short paid (or erroneously refunded) by reason of any of the factors mentioned in that proviso with an intent to evade duty. One of them is suppression of facts. Now, the department has made aware on 23-6-1989 of the fact that the duty so far calculated and paid was not co....