2011 (5) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arger period under Section 114A for recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs.17,24,407/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs, Twenty Four Thousands, Four Hundred, Seven and Paise Eighty One only). This amount became due because of receipt of certain amounts towards certain heads of income like freight, insurance, raw material purchase etc, which allegedly were not accounted for in the invoices. In the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority i.e. Jt.Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty and ordered levy of interest. In the Order-in-Appeal, it was held by Commissioner(Appeals) that the demand is fully barred by limitation and imposition of penalty, demand of interest was not allowed. While filing the appeal against this order, Revenu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of various facts, evidences and the case-laws on this issue. It is an admitted fact that the Show Cause Notice was issued only on 15.2.05 demanding dues from 2000-2001 onwards. It is also an admitted fact that the audit report was made available as early as in July 2002 and the respondents were filing RT-12 or ER-1 without any delay. Revenue has not contradicted the above. Going through the facts of the case, we cannot comprehend as to what has been suppressed from the Revenue by the assessee. If this is not made specific, the entire argument on extended period will remain only as a bald statement.   3. It was contended by the Revenue that ratio of the judgment in the case of in the case of P.B. Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE 2003....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... inference of fraud. The assessee declared the goods on the basis of their belief of the interpretation of the provisions of the law that the exempted goods were not required to be included and these did not include the value of the exempted goods which they manufactured at the relevant time. The Tribunal found that the explanation was plausible, and also noted that the Department had full knowledge of the facts about manufacture of all the goods manufactured by the respondent when the declaration was filed by the respondent. The respondent did not include the value of the product other than those falling under Tariff Item 14E manufactured by the respondent and this was in the knowledge, according to the Tribunal, of the authorities. These ....