2006 (1) TMI 525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellants are required to pre-deposit Rs. 3,39,656/- and penalty of Rs. 2,02,000/-. The appellants had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002 and cleared three Motor vehicles to Malasian High Commission at New Delhi. The Notification grants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he department's case is that the duty, as on the date of clearance to the Embassy, should have been paid. He submits that the Revenue had failed to issue Show Cause Notice within time and in the absence of any allegation of suppression, the question of invoking larger period does not arise. 2. The learned JDR submits that larger period is invocable in the present case. It was a duty impose....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....their letter dated  24-3-2003. The department did not take any steps to inform the assessee to pay the balance of the duty. They had kept quiet till the limitation period for issue of Show Cause Notice had lapsed. There was no allegation of suppression in the matter. Therefore, the time bar clearly applies to the facts of the case. 4. The learned Counsel has filed a large number of Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is applicable on the date when the vehicles were removed from their factory. The Revenue has kept quiet and has done nothing till the period of time lapsed. In terms of section 11A of the Act and from the perusal of the Show Cause Notice, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner has not invoked the larger period at all. There is no allegation of suppression, mis-statement, fraud, etc. to invoke....