TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore the extended period was not invokable and the SCN was issued beyond the normal period of one year. 2. The Revenue has contended that the respondent did not disclose to Revenue that it was clearing the Mahendra pumps along with their IC Units while claiming it to be a pump set eligible for concessional rate of duty. It did not disclose this fact in the RT-12 Returns also and indulged in this activity deliberately. The Ld. DR referred to the Judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vishakhapatnam vs Mehta & Co. [2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC)] to plead that the date when the department came to know is not relevant for the purpose of invocation of extended period and the same is invocable, if there is willful misstatement/ s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011 (269) E.L.T. 159 (Guj.)] and CESTAT judgment in the case of Celebrum Technologies Ltd. vs CCE, Chandigarh [2015 (40) S.T.R. 707 (Tri. Del)] to contend when an earlier SCN had been issued (even if for a subsequent period) extended period could not be invoked in the SCN dated 24.09.2004 covering the period September 1999 to February 2002. Ld. Advocate also cited the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture vs CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007 (216) ELT 177 (S.C.)] and pleaded that when there is ambiguity, extended period cannot be invoked and that the fact that there was an ambiguity is evident from the fact that CBEC issued a Circular No. 224/58/96 dated 26.06.1996 on the issue of classification and excisability ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se judgments would indicate them to be to the effect that the SCN raising demand for subsequent period cannot sustainably invoke extended period if a SCN had been issued earlier on the same issue for an earlier period. Indeed in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. (supra) the Ld. Tribunal had an occasion to deal with this issue and essentially held that issuance of SCN for normal period is no ground for not invoking extended period of limitation while issuing subsequent Show cause notice for an earlier period if there was willful misstatement/ suppression of facts in relation to the earlier period. Issuance of earlier SCN for normal period does not change nature of suppression etc. Para 6 of the said judgment is this regard is reproduced below....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty, chapter heading of base fabric is mentioned as 52, 54 or 55. In the present case since in the remand matter this Tribunal has observed that on the basis of base fabric of Chapter 60 used the products correct classification is under 5903.99 and following the same the Ld. Commissioner has correctly come to the conclusion that exemption provided to the goods of Chapter 5903.99 is admissible therefore the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel are distinguished on this ground. As regard the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the show cause notice issued for the period 1/3/86 to 31/1/89 is time barred as appellant had been filing their classification list from time to time and same were approved, hence, there was no suppression of facts and mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Only because show cause notice for the extended period was issued subsequently, nature of suppression and misdeclaration does not get extinguished. We therefore do not agree with this submission of the Ld. Counsel. In view of our above discussion, we are of the considered view that impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is sustainable. The appeal is dismissed." The respondent has also cited several judgments on this aspect. However, a detailed and thorough discussion on this point in the light of the judgments cited by the Ld. Advocate for respondent, even if arguably required, is not necessary for the purpose of the present case as would be evident from the following paras. 8. It is clearly brought out by Ld. Advocate that the i....