2011 (2) TMI 556

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;After hearing both sides, we find that the said duty stand confirmed against the appellant by considering the availment of benefit of duty free imports against advance licences surrendered by buyers in connection with the sale of goods as an additional consideration. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that the issue is decided against them by Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE Bhubaneshwear v. M/s. IFGL Refractories Ltd. as reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.). However, he defends the demand on the point limitation and revenue neutrality. As regards limitation, demand for the period 2005 to March 2007, stand raised by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 19-12-07. The adjudicating auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alue as provided under Section 4 of the Act. These facts have came to knowledge of the department only at the time of audit of the records by the audit party. Therefore, the extended period of 5 years under proviso to Section 11A(1) is correctly invoked in this case." 3. We find that the reasons adopted by the adjudicating authority are not in consonance with the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court for invoking longer period of limitation. As the adjudicating authority has observed that there was no provision for providing the information for duty free import of raw material, the non-providing of such information by the appellant cannot be held to be a justifiable ground of invoking longer period, unless there is evidence ....