2012 (8) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Declaration required under Rule 173 C of the Central Excise Rules? (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could have been invoked in the facts of the case under the proviso to section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (iii) Whether Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion that there was no suppression on the part of the Respondent more particularly when the declaration under Rule 173 C was admittedly not filed by the Respondent? (iv) Whether the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondent?" 2. We heard learned advocate Mr.Amar M. Bhatt appearing for the appellant. 3. The relevant facts involved i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule-209(A) and Rule-210 of the Central Excise Rules (erstwhile) were imposed. The amount of Rs.6,26,873/- paid by the respondent was ordered to be appropriated against the total duty amount. 3.3 The assessee preferred an appeal against the aforementioned order confirming the duty and imposing penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) by its order dated 29.05.2006 dismissed the appeal. The respondent-assessee approached the appellant Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal. 4. The issue before the Tribunal was whether there was any suppression on the part of the respondent. The case of the department was that the assessee contravened the provision of Section 173(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as necessary declaration was not filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in its impugned order, it observed as under:- "It is also to be noted that RT12 returns to be filed during the relevant period were to be filed along with duty paying documents for the scrutiny of the authorities concerned. It that be so, it cannot be held that appellants suppressed material facts from the Revenue authorities, more so, with intention to evade duty. If the documents have been checked properly by the lower authorities, they would have definitely come to the conclusion that the appellants had no reason to suppress the manufacturing of pipes in the area/ space provided by M/s. Essar Steels Limited in order to evade payment of duty". 5.2 Thus, from the facts and materials on record it was noticed that the scope of the wor....