TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (3) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time and on the facts of the present case, the proviso to Section 11A of the Act would not be applicable and hence this period cannot be extended to five years and (2) that the stock in question was pre-budget stock, the assessment on the same was illegal and not sustainable. 3.The brief facts are that the notice was issued to the appellant company on 25th June, 1979 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Madras-IV Division to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 9(2) and 173 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why a duty of Rs. 1,01,915.84 paise should not be demanded under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4.The notice indicated that the appellant company having sold the transformer oil ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or of Central Excise. Thereafter the appellant company filed a revision before the Central Government under Section 36, which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the appellant against which the present appeal has been filed. 7.We have heard at length the learned Counsel for the parties. 8.Learned Counsel for the appellant laid emphasis that unless there was wilful suppression of material fact which is not in the present case, by an assessee period of six months as provided, under proviso to Section 11A would not be applicable. The contention is that it is true that the clearance of these products has not been disclosed in the relevant monthly RT 12 register, but they were nevertheles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 11A would be attracted, as it stood at the material time and the demand was, therefore, within time as recorded above. This finding has been recorded consistently by all the authorities below and we do not find any error to interfere with the same. 11.Then, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the following decisions of this Court regarding interpretation of Section 11 of the Act. In the case of Lubri-Chem Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1994 (73) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) = 1994 (2) Supp. III 258], this Court while interpreting proviso to Section 11A held that extension of limitation period beyond six months up to five years for making a demand for excise duty, there has to be conscious or deliberate withhold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plied in the section itself. So, the eventuality envisaged in Section 11A for further lengthening of the limitation period must be strictly construed. 14.The proposition of law as laid down is not in dispute. We find in the present case as aforesaid, a clear finding was recorded that the petitioner was aware and was obliged to file RG 1 Register, gate passes and also of clearances in the RT 12 returns by disclosing the particulars which was not done in the present case. The finding recorded in this case, especially in the background that this was a case of self removal procedure in which there is obligation cast on the assessee to make proper and correct declaration and entries in the production register RG 1. Further finding was that it....