2025 (8) TMI 998

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the Adjudicating Authority. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA dated 20/06/2013 set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. After about four years, the present proceedings were initiated for the period 2010-11 to 2013-14 by invoking the extended period provisions. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that on the same set of facts, the Department has issued the present Show Cause Notice for the subsequent period 2010-11, 2013-14. The earlier OIA passed by the Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Show Cause Notices as well as the present Show Cause Notice. Therefore, I find that the Revenue was in error in invoking the extended period for the second time for the present proceedings. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, cited supra has held as under : - "8. Without going into the question regarding Classification and marketability and leaving the same open, we intend to dispose of the appeals on the point of limitation only. This Court in the case of P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (2003) 3 SCC 599 = 2003 (153) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.) has taken the view that in a case in which a show cause notice has been issued for the earlier....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt intervals from 1985 to 1988 and further, they had dropped the proceedings accepting that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. It is, therefore, futile to contend that there has been suppression of fact in regard M/s. Pharmachem Distributors being a related person. On that score, we are unable to uphold the invoking of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act for making the demand for the extended period." This judgment was followed by this Court in the case of ECE Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in (2004) 13 SCC 719 = 2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C.). In para 4, it was observed : "4. In the case of M/s. P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise report....