TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il 2010, directing deposit of interest of Rs. 19,12,888/- and Rs. 1,57,195/- respectively on the additional amount of Rs. 37,30,036/- and Rs. 9,62,420/- paid as duty on 11th March2006 and 30th October 2007 on goods cleared between February 2001 to November 2005 and November 2005 to June 2007 to the Indian Railways. 2. Learned Cost Accountant appearing for the appellant submits that the provision for escalation, by invoking of 'book examination clause', is peculiar to contracts with Indian Railways and the discharge of duty liability suo motu by the appellant arising therefrom precludes denomination as short-payment of duty within the meaning of section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and, hence, does not warrant the application of section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions. 3. Learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (326) ELT 450 (SC)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Gammon India Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur [2013 (298) ELT 171 (Bom.)]. In addition, as a counter to the contention of the Learned Cost Accountant on the requirement of extending the limitation in section 11A as applicable to section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, that relies on the decision in re Paper Products Ltd, Learned Authorised Representative cites the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Tata Motors Ltd v. Union of India [2009 (244) ELT 337 (Bom.)]. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1962 would also apply in such provisions of the statute that do not mandate a time-limit. We also find that the Tribunal, in re Paper Products Ltd, on reference to third member, has held '26.1 I have perused carefully the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals case (supra). The only ratio as far as I can see, which has been laid down in the said decision is that merely because the provision of a statute does not lay down any time limit, the exercise of power under the said provision cannot be invalidated so long as the power is exercised within a reasonable period. The question whether a party should be put to notice or not before initiating any action was not a question before the Hon'ble Apex Court in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar [AIR 1989 SC 620] wherein it was held as under : "4. Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of blacklisting the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. Insofar as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principles of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realized that blacklisting any person in respect of business venture....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uary 2001 and February 2005 is barred by limitation, we, in the light of these judgments, and absence of any other overruling decisions, must follow and we do so. 7. The decision in re Tata Motors Limited that has been relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representative is on the issue of judicial discipline and that too in the context of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in re Gammon India Ltd. The said decision has referred to the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. International Auto Limited [2010 (250) ELT 3 (SC)] which itself relies upon the decision in re SKF India Ltd while distinguishing the circumstance in which the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had rendered the deci....