2015 (2) TMI 231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4. Counsel for the assessee submits that proceedings to revise an accepted return can be validly initiated only if there is suppression of relevant facts. The Tribunal while setting aside penalty has held that the appellant is not guilty of suppression of relevant facts. The Tribunal, however, failed to apply this finding to the duty levied and affirmed the levy of duty. The order passed by the Tribunal is, therefore, contradictory and may be set aside. Counsel for the revenue submits that in his self assessment return the assessee claimed that he is covered by the notification. The assessee was aware that duty was required to be paid but did not deposit duty, thereby proving suppression of material facts. The Assessing Officer has, theref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pecifically averring that, in view of Section 11(A) and 11(A)(C) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), jurisdiction to revise a return, within the extended period of limitation can only be exercised if there is a suppression of facts. The CESTAT, vide order dated 16.01.2014, confirmed the demand of duty, but set aside penalty by holding that there is no suppression of facts. A relevant extract from the order reads as follows:- "2. Perusal of the two documents referred above shows that the appellant has informed to the department while seeking SSI exemption. That aspect remain undisputed for the reason that learned Adjudicating authority has taken cognizance thereof in para 51 of the adjudication or....