2010 (9) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Central Excise Act and should have once it has held that there has been suppression with evade to payment of duty the period of five years is automatically attracted." 2. This matter has a past history which, we feel, ought to be recorded. This matter was reheard by the learned Tribunal pursuant to the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27th November, 2008 [2009 (236) E.L.T. A54 (S.C.)]. The operative portion of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted hereunder- "...............By our separate judgment today in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-5892 of 2000 we have set aside the order of CEGAT and remitted the matter to it to be dealt with afresh. The decision in the said case shall apply to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, it is found that if there is no scope for any suppression of fact by the assessee the above period of limitation as envisaged in the proviso is not applicable. The ordinary period of limitation of one year has to be followed is the rule and the provision of proviso in a fit case as mentioned therein is an exception. Therefore we were asked to examine whether the learned Tribunal has correctly concluded the question of limitation. It is absolutely mixed question of law and on fact. If it is not established by the revenue that there was suppression on the part of the assessee with an intention to evade duty the said provision cannot be applied. In this case the show cause notice was issued on 6th November, 1997 in relation to duty for the....