2014 (8) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 63,276/- along with interest thereon and also imposing equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 2. The facts relevant to the case are briefly as follows: 2.1 The appellant is a manufacturer of bakery products such as biscuits and cakes and also manufactures ice-creams. The appellant was availing the benefit of small scale exemption. However, on crossing the exemption limit, the appellant did not discharge excise duty liability. The appellant also did not take any registration nor did they file any statutory returns or maintain records. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 06/11/2001 was issued to the appellant demanding excise duty of Rs. 1,26,636/- for the peri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3/2000. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 06/11/2001. Inasmuch as the department was aware of the activities of the appellant, the invocation of extended period is clearly unsustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned demand is liable to be set aside. 3.1 It is also further argued that the products manufactured by the appellant have a short-life and therefore, the appellant was under the belief that they were not liable to excise duty. It is further pleaded that even if the duty demands are upheld, a lenient view may be taken and the penalty imposed be set aside. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating and appellate authorities. It is his contention ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant failed to discharge excise duty liability. Further, the appellant did not submit details sought by the department and continued to drag the issue by prolonged correspondence. In view of the above, suppression of information on the part of the appellant is clearly established. 5.2 The hon'ble apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Mehta & Co. 2011 (264) ELT 481 2011 has held that the relevant date for computation of time limit is the date on which date the department acquired knowledge regarding the activities undertaken by the appellant. In that case, the appellant submitted the details to the department only on 27/02/1997 and therefore, the apex Court held as follows: "The cause of action, i.e., ....