2015 (9) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the relevant time the limitation provided under Section 11A was six months. On that reckoning the period covered in the show cause notice, except six days of period prior 1986, was beyond the period of limitation. For this reason, in the show cause notice, the Revenue invoked the provision of proviso to Section 11A in order to take the advantage of extended period of limitation contained therein. A Walk-in cooler consists of an insulated room with a door. A cooling unit is fixed on the top panel of this enclosure and cool air is blown in to maintain low temperature therein. This cooling room consists of an enclosure made of insulated panels which are brought to the site of the customer and are put together along with strips and joining ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that even the parts of Walk-in coolers would not be covered by the entry `parts of the appliances and material of class'.... Refrigerator and air conditioned appliances. One such judgment in the case of Mother India Refrigeration Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and Others 1980 (6) ELT 600 (All.) was rendered by Allahabad High Court. This judgment is dated 4.11.1978. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Allahabad High Court itself in another judgment which was rendered on 22.11.1984. As on the date of show cause notice, the aforesaid view was the prevailing view. However, this Court in the case of Frick India Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1990 (48) ELT 627 (S.C.) over-ruled the aforesaid decision and held that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s thus argued that there was no suppression and every nuance was within the knowledge of the Department. On a reading of this judgment we find that all the facts which are on the basis of suppression is alleged now, were known to the Revenue. It would be of interest to point out that it was argued by the Revenue itself (though was not accepted) that the assessee is first assembling the Walk-in coolers at its factory and thereafter this elaborate process is represented on the customers site. This argument of the Revenue itself would disclose that the Revenue had known all the relevant facts. Therefore, it could not be a case of suppression or mis-declaration at all. Further as pointed out above, many High Courts had taken the view that the....