2007 (5) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... November 1996. In these circumstances, there is no factual basis to the allegation that the assessee suppressed any material facts. Show-cause notice dated 1-6-2000 was issued almost four years after the payment of the differential duty by the assessee, well beyond the normal period allowed for duty demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act'). Demand of duty for longer period up to 5 years is permissible only if the short levy of duty is on account of suppression, mis-declaration of facts, fraud etc. as provided in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. These elements constituting contumacious conduct by the assessee are entirely lacking in the present case. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on the ground....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ort of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the exemption was claimed under the relevant sales tax laws but there was collection of sales tax as was admitted by the accountant on 26-10-1999. The assessee also admitted about the collection on 10-11-1999. The amount collected was Rs. 2,37,58,095/-. It has been fairly accepted by the assessee that there was no intimation given about the sales tax exemption or the deposit made to the range officer or any other authority. 4. It has been categorically found by the Commissioner that there was no evidence of any intimation produced by the assessee. It was only indicated in the reply to the show-cause notice that the matter was pending. The Commissioner recorded the followin....