2014 (5) TMI 757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue against the OIA No. 111/2006(Ahd-I) dated 29.6.2006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad by holding that extended period for demanding duty for the period 1999-2000 can be invoked while issuing a second show cause notice when extended period has been invoked for the earlier period 1998-99 on the same issue. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent during the hearings fixed on 03.07....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te of knowledge of the departmental officers. He argued that though the period 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 is indicated in Para 3 of the show cause notice dated 08.8.2003 but as per annexure 'A' & 'B' to this show cause notice only period up to March 1999 was covered in the first show cause notice. The period involved in the show cause notice dated 27.04.2004 is also prior to the date of visit of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the period prior to visit of the Central Excise officers on 29.6.2000. It is not the case in the present proceedings that subsequent show cause notice is issued for the extended period after the visit of the Central Excise officers for the same facts as was the case before the Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)], which will thus not be available to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for issuing SCN is five years from the relevant date. The SCN is issued within this outer period. The decision in Nizam Sugar is being wrongly interpreted that the Revenue is bound to issue only one SCN invoking suppression irrespective of the nature of the period involved. The decision in Nizam Sugar is very much consistent with legal provisions and common sense. The interpretation of the decis....