2019 (6) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was issued alleging interalia, that, for the period June 2008, the appellants had short paid the excise duty to the extent of Rs. 8,92,216/-, which culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2013 whereby the adjudicator had observed that there was a shortfall to the extent of Rs. 8,00,072/- which remained for the period from 30.06.2008 to 05.09.2008. He has also observed that the appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I) the first appellate authority, interalia challenging the dropping of the proceedings and the first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 25.10.2016 has, to a certain extent, reversed the order of the adjudicating authority. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the alleged wrong availment of Cen....

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 short payment of duty was required to be paid only in cash? On going through the impugned Commissioner (Appeal)'s order as pointed out by the Ld. Advocate, I find that the Revenue has miserably failed to justify, in the first place, the invocation of extended period of limitation. At paragraph-7.9 of the impugned order the Commissioner (appeals) has not accepted the finding of the original a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... law for invoking larger period wholly rests on suppression, etc. So, viewed in this context, what is not applicable to one cannot be made applicable to another: when there is no suppression for levying penalty, there can be no case for suppression for invoking larger period also. This assumes more relevance and importance especially when there was an audit in September 2009. It is a matter of rec....