2006 (2) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been passed in respect of:- (i) De novo proceeding in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court, Patna, Bench at Ranchi's order dated 21-8-98 in C.W.J.C. 197 of 1991 against the order-in-original 20-MP/Collr/90, dated 22-11-1990 passed by Collector, Central excise, Patna in respect of SCN No. V(73)(15)27/88/Part. 5523, dated 4-12-1989, and (ii) SCN No. V(15) T-3/11/878/5765, dated 18-7-88 issued by Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jamshedpur. 3. As regard the duty liability on the impugned goods is concerned Dr. Samir Chakraborthy, learned Advocate for the appellants fairly concedes that the issue of excisability including the question of manufacture and marketability of such goods has been decided by the Larger Bench decision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been held by the Bench of three Judges of the Honourable Supreme Court that extended period of five years is not invokable when there is a bona fide doubt as to non-excisability of goods due to divergent views of the High Courts. It has also been held therein that mere failure or negligence in not taking licence or not paying duty is not sufficient to invoke extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA). 4. Countering the arguments Shri Nair, learned D.R. appearing for the Department cites the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad to say that in the present case the jurisdictional superintendent had visited the factory of the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upra) is applicable in the instant case as there were conflicting, on the issue and the demand notice dtd. 4-12-1989 was clearly issued beyond 6 months of the relevant period which was May, 1986 to January, 1989. Hence, we are of the view that the demand of an amount of Rs. 3,55,81,610.71 is hit by limitation. We also observe that the jurisdictional authorities did come to know of the activities of the appellants during their visit on 12-1-1988 and therefore, they could have issued demands within the normal period of limitation at least for the period 6 months prior to that date till January, 1989 which does not appear to have been done. In the light of the Apex court decision in the case of Jaiprakash (cited supra), it is necessary that th....