2017 (5) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the CESTAT was justified in holding that the SCN dated 13.1.1999 invoking the provisions of Section 11A(1) is barred by limitation on the basis of SCN dated 23.6.1997 which is issued only for the purpose of seizure of the goods and not for any demand under Section 11A?" 2. The tribunal, in the order under challenge, was considering the issue arising out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise decided on 29th October, 2004. 3. After setting out the facts and the circumstances leading to the investigation and issuance of a show cause notice, it is found by the tribunal that the Preventive Officers commenced an inquiry on 29th September, 1996 and a show cause notice dated 26th March, 1997 was issued. The adjudication ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on receipt claim on documents in the show cause notice issued on 13.1.1999 was not upheld after considering the correspondence exchanged and taking note of the Supreme Court decision in case of Sanghi Textile Processors 1997 (68) ECR 570 SC brought to the notice of the department. We cannot uphold the supply of documents prior to issue of the present proceedings i.e. 27.11.97 & 1.12.97, to be compliance of the onus on the department to supply the copies relied upon documents in the case initiated by notice dt. 13.1.1999. Moreover, if the department is arguing that the material documents are the same as in the earlier proceedings conducted by the Additional Commissioner, then this subsequent notice dt. 13.1.1999 invoking the proviso to secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d not be taken as suppression on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. That is how the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been consistently approaching the issue. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Bangur appearing for the appellant would submit that despite this position emerging from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and relied upon by Mr.Patil, this court admitted this appeal on 11th April, 2007 and on the above reproduced substantial question of law. Therefore, the matter is not covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 7. Having heard both sides, what we have found is that the tribunal, in the impugned order, has rested its conclusion on all three asp....