2018 (3) TMI 992

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... records and other particulars, the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities vide letter dated 04/02/2008 requested the Licensing Authority for granting of final debonding permission to the appellant. Subsequently, the unit of the appellant was audited by the Internal Audit Wing of the Central Excise Department. It was observed by the Audit Wing that the appellant did not discharge duty liability on the finished goods lying in stock. On the basis of the audit report, the Department initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant, which culminated in the adjudication order dated 03/12/2014, wherein Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 3,51,426/- was confirmed on the appellant under the proviso to Section 11 A (1) of the Central Excise A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f time and the duty demand cannot be confirmed on the ground of limitation. To support such stand, the Ld. Consultant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LML Limited v/s Collector 1997 (95) ELT A151 and judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner v/s Navnit Lal Private Limited 2011 (264) ELT 836. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. In this case, the appellant mainly contended that in absence of suppression, misstatement, fraud etc, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, for confirmation of the duty demand. In this context, I find that ba....