2026 (6) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appeal of the Appellant and thus upheld the levy of penalties. A perusal at the SCN No.27/2016 dated 26.04.2016 inter alia reveals that the Appellant who was a manufacturer of pickles had cleared the same without payment of Central Excise Duty and without obtaining Registration under the Central Excise, which prompted the officers of Headquarters Preventive Unit of Chennai-II Commissionerate to visit the premises on 12.02.2013. It appears that during the visit the officers collected/seized documents and records of the Appellant and as a follow-up action, statement of Proprietor of the Appellant firm was recorded on 27.02.2013 and a further statement was also recorded on 24.06.2013. 2. Per para 6 of the SCN, it is the case of the Rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appeal vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 464/2017 (CXA-II) dated 29.12.2017 the present Appeal has been filed before this forum. 4. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, Shri N. Vishwanathan, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant contended at the threshold that the cause of action if at all, had arisen when the officers of Headquarters, Preventive Unit visited the Appellant's premises on 12.02.2013 during which time the officers pressurized the Appellant to pay the duty by obtaining appropriate Registration under Central Excise Act, 1944, the SCN which having been issued only in 2016, i.e. after more than three years from the above cause of action, the invocation of extended period of limitation is, therefore, unjustified. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty could be lived. In view of the above discussions, we are of the clear view that the revenue has seriously erred in passing the Order-in-Original, which came to be upheld. 7. We also find merit in the contentions of the ld. Advocate that the extended period of limitation is invoked without any justification. A perusal of SCN clearly reveals that the officers of Headquarters Preventive Unit visited the Appellant's premises on 12.02.2013 itself. Para 1.11 of the Order-in-Original records the dates of deposit of amounts as 07.03.2013 & 13.05.2013, which were appropriated in the Order-in-Original. It is clear from the above that the Department was very much aware, if not from their date of visit but at least from the date of deposit i.e. ....