TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed period on the same issue. Department has relied upon the case of CESTAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur [2009 (244) E.L.T. 401 (Tri.-Del.)] holding that two show cause notices invoking extended period can be issued. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. The ld. AR argued that extended period for subsequent show cause notice can be invoked in view of the CESTAT judgment in the case of Uniworth Textiles (supra). He emphasized that it was never informed by the respondent that they are taking Cenvat credit with respect to items which were earlier denied to them. 4. The ld. Consultant representing the Respondents argued that once extended period show-cause notice on an issue has been served upon them, another show-c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e a show-cause notice for demand of short levied/short paid duty for a particular period is issued on the basis of certain set of facts, show cause notice for recovery of short levied/short paid duty for the subsequent period cannot be issued by alleging wilful statement, fraud, suppression of facts etc. on the basis of the same set of facts. In the case of Nizam Sugar Factory, first show cause notice for recovery of short paid duty for the period from February, 1978 to September, 1982 had been issued on 28-2-1984 invoking extended period by making allegation of wilful misstatement, suppression of facts etc. and subsequently a second show cause notice dated 16-7-1987 was issued for the subsequent period from October, 1982 to March, 1987 on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for which a second show cause notice invoking extended period was issued. For the period up to July, 2001, obviously, the first show cause notice invoking extended period was issued. Since both the show cause notices issued in that case were prior to the date of detection, it was held that both the show cause notices, for the period before the date of detection, can be issued invoking extended period. On that reasoning, the judgments in the cases of Nizam Sugar Factory [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.)] (supra) and P & B Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. [2003 (153) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.)] were distinguished by CESTAT in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. (supra). 7. Both the lower adjudicating authority and the First Appellat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce; had not followed the procedure prescribed under the rules; and had not discharged duty liability. The said SCN covered the period of assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87. Appellant responded to the second SCN and took the plea that the SCN under consideration was practically a repetition of the allegations contained in the SCN dated 28-2-1984 and for the period April, 1982 to September, 1982 the department had raised demands under two different SCNs. It was pointed out that carbon dioxide in the impure form was not marketable as it also contained carbon monoxide in lethal proportions. It was contended that they were under bona fide belief that since such impure carbon dioxide was not exigible to payment of duty, they were not required to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered admissible by the Department. The period of demand in the second show-cause notice is April, 2008 to June, 2009 is after the period October, 2007 to March, 2008 for which the first show cause notice was issued. It cannot be considered that the ratio of Nizam Sugar Factory case (supra) decided by the Apex Court will not be applicable to the present proceedings. One could appreciate if the second show cause notice was for the period prior to October, 2007 to March, 2008 when the method of taking Cenvat credit was first detected by audit. For the subsequent periods Department was aware of the credit taking methodology of appellant. The distinction attempted to be made by the Department under para 5.5 of the grounds of appeal are, there....