2015 (1) TMI 760

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: Ramesh C. Shukla, Sr.S.C. ORDER We have heard Sri Ram Chandra Shukla, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal and Ms. Sanyukta Singh for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. We, accordingly, condon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the period of limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the proviso to Section 11A of the Act would be applicable where the limitation is applicable for five years. We are of the opinion that the proviso to Section 11A is not applicable because the show cause notice does not indicate that there was deliberate act of suppression of fact, fraud, mis-statement, etc. committ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive act on the part of the party to establish either wilful mis-declaration or wilful suppression. When all facts are before the Department and a party in the belief that affixing of a label makes no difference does not make a declaration, then there would be no wilful mis-declaration or wilful suppression. If the Department felt that the party was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dgment of this Court in Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. CCE, 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.) wherein this Court held: "We find that "suppression of facts" can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade payment of duty, when facts were known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done not that he must have done would not render it....