2023 (1) TMI 545

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SIVAGNANAM AND MR. SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. Ankit Kanodia, Ms. Megha Agarwal, Ms. Payel Shaw For the Respondents : Mr. Kaushik Dey, Mr. Tapan Bhanja For Union of India : Ms. Tanusree Ghosh JUDGMENT 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 2022 in W.P.A. No.21202 of 2022 by which the learned Single Bench declined to gr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rds the validity of the show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation. 4. The sum and substance of the objection raised by the appellants is that for the financial years 2011-2012 to 2014- 2015, show cause notice was issued, which culminated in an order of adjudication and the matter is now pending before the Tribunal at the instance of the appellants and in such circumstances, f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave been invoked. 5. Apart from the preliminary objection, the appellants had also filed their reply on the merits of the matter. The adjudicating authority while passing the order dated 27th July, 2022 has verbatim extracted the reply given by the appellants to the show cause notice in which the reliance on the decision in Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) has also been referred. However, the adjudi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... P. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Ahmedabad reported in 2014 (34) S.T.R. 289 (Tri. - Ahmd.) in which the decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) was referred to and noted. However, this is not clear from the impugned order. In any event, if for the earlier year show cause notice has been issued on the same allegation, the question would be for the subsequent period, suppression can be alleged for t....