TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Audit Party (CERA) visited the factory of the assessee on 3rd and 4th October, 2002 and raised an objection, which entered into correspondence with the authorities for short levy of the duty for the period 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2002 on the ground that there was wrong assessment of the goods cleared by the appellant. During the correspondence with the lower authorities, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 5,03,673/- on a letter written by the Range Superintendent. The lower authorities persisted for payment of differential duty which was not adhered to by the appellants. In view of this, the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice dated 10-9-2004 for the demand of differential duty during the period 16-9-199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount paid by the appellant during the pendency is to be confirmed or to be set aside even while holding that the entire demand is barred by limitation? 5. At the outset, we would like to reproduce the findings of the adjudicating authority as regards the question of confirmation, which is enshrined in paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 :- 18. I am at loss to understand as to why no immediate action was taken by the department and its officers by 15th February-2001 in case of the subject company against whom present proceedings had been launched. Although audit objection was raised in 1st week of October-2002 i.e. after a lapse of 22 months i.e. after issuance of the C.B.E. & C. circular and the department issued show cause notice-cum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 10th September-2004 as well as the corrigendum dated 17th June 2005 and 28th July 2005 (were without any authority of law and are held to be not justified. 19. To that extent, I further hold that the case laws cited by the ld. pleader i.e. the ratios of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision as laid down in case of P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. as well as in case of C.C.E., Nagpur v. Campher Drugs and Liminets as reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) is very much relevant. For leveling the charges of suppression, there should be a positive act of omission or commission. Only then extra period could be pressed in service. I did notice that when the CERA Audit visited in October-2002 and the Superintendent asked the party to pay th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bt under the pretext of corrigendum fresh and more liability cannot be created but for attracting the limitation period as provided in law. Therefore, the corrigendum dated 17-6-2005 and 28-7-2005 have to been seen and adjudged accordingly. When the parent notice of demand dated 10-9-2004 itself was barred by limitation holding the corrigendum as legal, proper or valid, does not arise. Those were without authority of law. To that extent, the submission of the ld. Counsel and the reliance on case laws as extracted above is very much relevant and are apt to the fact and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the question of penalty does not arise. There is no material which warrants to hold that even there was an element of evasion or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be fortified or enhanced by corrigendum are held to be inappropriate and illegal. Thus demands and other proposed cause of actions are barred by limitation as provided under provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the lower adjudicating authority that he has clearly held that show cause notice dated 10-9-2004 as well as corrigendum dated 17-6-2005 and 28-7-2005 were without any authority of law and inappropriate and illegal. It is also his finding that the demands and other proposed cause of actions are barred by limitation as provided under provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is to be seen that the Revenue authorities have not filed any appeal agai....