Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2026 (1) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der dated 18.05.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (in short 'Cestat'/'Tribunal'). 2. The questions raised for adjudication relates solely to the non-consideration of the aspect of limitation by the Tribunal and read thus: '(1) Whether the 1st respondent is right in rejecting the legal plea regarding department's knowledge and time bar by holding that this plea was not raised before the lower authorities? (2) Whether the 1st respondent is right in rejecting the above plea by holding that the same was not raised even in the appeal filed before it, but only during the hearings?' 3. The appellant is engaged in the activity of fabrication. In respect of the period 1995-96, a Sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A second appeal was filed before the Cestat before whom also, no ground of limitation was taken. Hence, the Cestat proceeded solely on the merits of the matter. Suppression has been specifically noted and confirmed by the Tribunal, and this would support the invocation of larger period of limitation. The Cestat notes that the manufacturing activity of all three units was conducted in the premises of the appellant company and that there were no other premises where MFE, and EPI could have carried out manufacturing, as there was neither factory nor machinery available with MFE and EPI. 8. Hence, the claim of MFE and EPI that they were independent units having plant and machinery of their own to enable them to carry out manufacturing acti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is correct or otherwise, are unavailable. 13. Section 11A deals with recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. The period of limitation provided for such recovery is one year from the relevant date, being the date of short levy/non-levy. However, in cases where the Revenue is able to establish the ingredients of a) fraud, b) collusion, c) wilful misstatement, d) suppression of facts or e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the Department has in its arsenal, an extended period of 5 years of limitation from the relevant date, to serve a notice for assessment. 14. It is the case of the assessee tha....