TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir godown at Sagar. On such verification, it was found that they had received 98 packages containing 28,55,600 biris on 28-9-95 from M/s. Cee Jay Tobacco Limited. However, during the follow up verification conducted at the premises of M/s. Cee Jay Tobacco Limited, it was noticed that no such invoice was issued from Abhna to the latter party. Consequently, a show cause notice dt. 22-11-95 was issued to both the parties by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Sagar calling upon M/s. Cee Jay Tobacco Limited to show cause why the Central Excise duty of Rs. 15,135/- on 28,55,600 biris removed without payment of duty on 28-9-95 should not be recovered from them and why a penalty should not be imposed on them. In the same notice, M/s. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating authority on the same facts and findings invoking extended period on the ground of suppression of facts is not sustainable. The facts about the case were in the knowledge of the department at the time of issue of show cause notice dt. 22-11-95 which did not mention any suppression of fact. But after almost two years, another show cause notice in the same case alleging suppression of facts by the appellant but without any basis/justification and invoking extended period can in no way be construed factually and legally correct. The notice was, therefore, time barred on the date of issue. As the first show cause notice was not adjudicated at all before the issue of the earlier show cause notice, it has become infructuous and can only be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts were in the knowledge of the department; that mere fact of issuance of one show cause notice will not disentitle the department from issuance of fresh show cause notice with the limitation period of five years invoking suppression and mis-statement of facts with intention to evade the payment of duty. I have considered these submissions. The crucial factors in the present proceeding is that admittedly the department had issued a show cause notice to the same parties and on the same facts on 22-11-95. In that notice, no allegations relating to the suppression, fraud or mis-statement of facts with the intention to evade payment of duty etc. were made and no extended period for demanding duty was invoked or applied. The department wa....