2013 (10) TMI 1342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tial questions of law for our consideration. 1. Whether or not the assessee had suppressed relevant facts from the department? 2. Whether or not the extended period would be invoked under section 11A proviso, notwithstanding the department's knowledge of the facts? 3. Whether or not the Tribunal ought to have held that OIO is barred by limitation? [2.0] Brief facts that has given rise to the present appeal are as follows: Respondent M/s. BIL Metal Industries Ltd., Vadodara is engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts and tools and on payment of the duty it clears the same and also avails the Modvat Credit. It was averred that the respondent was evading the central excise duties by excluding the cost of moulds and dies manu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....­cause notice beyond the normal period of limitation of six months at the relevant time was held barred by limitation. This has aggrieved the present appellant revenue which has preferred the present appeal proposing the aforementioned substantial questions of law. [3.0] We have heard the learned counsel Ms. Gaurang Bhatt appearing for the department. He urged that the Tribunal has erred in holding that two views were prevailing at the relevant point of time and therefore, the assessee could not be held guilty of suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of duty. He urged that the period for which the show­cause notice was issued on 18.03.1998 was from February 1994 to March 1997. He urged that the decision of Niza....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the value of the printed cartons. In the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (Supra), the majority had held that the clear intention with which the Law Makers has extended the period of limitation if the person has not paid the duty due to the government was only on account of fraud, suppression, wilful mis­statement or contravention of the Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of duty and the relevant date would mean the date of acquiring the knowledge by the department. [3.3] In the instant case, as could be noticed that the fact of noninclusion of cost of moulds and dies was in the knowledge of the revenue and the Assistant Commissioner while rejecting the refund claim had in terms noted this fact. Such rejection had come on 18.0....