TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y a letter dated 25.07.1997, they have communicated and admitted the fact of manufacture and clearances of excisable goods without Central Excise Registration and payment of duty during the period 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97. Consequently, they have taken registration on 01.09.1997 and discharged duty.However, since they failed to submit details of clearances of earlier period as stated in their letter, their factory was visited on 23.10.97 and on completion of investigation thereafter, relating to the quantum of duty involved for the period 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, a show-cause cum demand notice was issued on 23.02.1999 invoking extended period of limitation proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 19,77,701/- for the period 1994-95, 1995-96, 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fide belief that fabrication of machinery would not come under the scope of Central Excise duty as there was lot of confusion on the excisability of fabrication of work during the relevant time. Further, he has submitted that there was no intention to evade duty and accordingly, there was no question of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB, which came into force subsequently. Further, the ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the demand notice issued to them, is barred by limitation as the same ought to have been issued within six months from the date of voluntarily disclosure of the facts by the Appellant i.e. from 27.07.1997. He has submitted that as there was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etrieve the information. On conclusion of investigation, show-cause cum demand notice was issued invoking extended period of limitation. He has submitted that extended period of limitation is rightly invoked as in the letter dated July, 1997, the Appellant had though promised to submit all details, but failed to furnish clearance value of the excisable goods during the previous period. It is submitted that the conduct of the Appellant clearly reveals intention to evade duty by suppression of fact of manufacture and clearance of the excisable goods for the period in question. 6. Further responding to the argument that the show-cause notice issued on 23.02.1999 is barred by limitation as the same should have been issued within six months fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first time, hence, the same cannot be admissible. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. The contention of the Appellant in assailing the impugned order of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), is two fold: It is the contention of the Appellant that through their letter dated 25th July, 1997, all the facts were informed to the Department, hence, invoking the extended period of limitation in confirming duty for the period 1994-95 to 1996-1997, is bad in law. The said argument of the Appellant, in my view, is incorrect in law in view of the principle settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta & Company and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concept in sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act or the proviso thereunder it would tantamount to rewriting the statutory provision and no canon of interpretation permits such an exercise by any Court. If it is not open to the superior court to either add or substitute words in a statute such right cannot be available to a statutory Tribunal. 17. The proviso cannot be read to mean that because there is knowledge the suppression which stands established disappears. Similarly the concept of reasonable period of limitation which is sought to be read into the provision by some of the orders of the Tribunal also cannot be permitted in law when the statute itself has provided for a....