Central Excise Appeal No. 143 of 2005. Case: Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-V Vs Phenoweld Polymers Pvt. Ltd.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Central Excise Appeal No. 143 of 2005 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri A.S. Rao with S.D. Bhosale, Advs. and For Respondent: Shri Vinay Ansurkar with D.H. Nadkarni and C.S. Biradar i/b. M/s. Legal Solutions. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and S.P. Deshmukh, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11A |
| Citation | 2015 (322) ELT 117 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | March 13, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. (Oral)
-
This appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai dated 8th June, 2005. The appeal has been admitted on three substantial questions of law which read as under:
1. Whether in view of express provision provided in Section 11A extended period of limitation is invocable only for the larger period beyond limitation and not otherwise?
2. Whether the Hon''ble CESTAT was justified in holding that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in subsequent proceedings when no suppression has been alleged in previous show cause notices without considering that the show cause notice issued alleging suppression is for period for Nov. 1992 to Jan. 1996 whereas the show cause notices issued earlier were for the period Feb. 1996 and onwards?
3. Whether the Hon''ble Tribunal was justified in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. ECE Indl. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C.) which is distinguishable to the facts of the present case?
-
The Revenue issued a show cause-cum-demand notice to the respondent-assessee demanding Excise duty interest and imposing penalty. An Order-in-Original was passed on 5th February, 1999 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V. The Revenue alleged that the respondent is holder of Central Excise registration. It is engaged in the manufacture of plastic flushing cistern and parts thereof falling under Chapters 39 and 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. A show cause notice was issued on 19th November, 1997, calling upon the assessee to show cause why the duty demanded with interest penalty thereon for the period November, 1992 to January, 1996 under proviso to Section 11A should not be recovered.
-
The contention essentially before us is that though suppression was noticed by the Revenue, the three show cause notices dated 11th September, 1996 for the period February, 1996, show cause notice dated 4th October, 1996 for the period March, 1996 to July, 1996 and show cause notice dated 3rd March, 1997 for the period August, 1996 to September, 1996 did not allege suppression and, therefore, the larger period was not invoked. In the subject show cause notice dated 19th November, 1997, which covered the period November, 1992 to January, 1996, the extended period of limitation was invoked. A reply...
To continue reading
Request your trial