Dismissed

commissioner of central excise-thane-i v. m/s shree ram steel rolling mills

Bombay HC4 Oct 2007CEXA/125/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Central Excise Appeal concerned the validity of an extended assessment period under section 11A. The court held that the proviso regarding fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement must be explicitly invoked to extend the time limit. Since the show cause notice did not invoke this proviso or establish fraud, the extended period could not be applied, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as the extended period under section 11A could not be invoked without the proviso regarding fraud or collusion.

commissioner of central excise-thane-i Vs m/s shree ram… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

SAS

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.125 OF 2006

¶5

 Commissioner of Central Excise ..Appellant.

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 M/s.Shree Ram Steel Rolling Mills ..Respondent.

¶8

 Mr.M.I.Sethna, senior counsel with A.S.Rao and
 S.D.Bhosale for appellant.

¶9

CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2007.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

 Appellant served a show cause notice cum

¶13

 demand dated 4th September, 1985 on the respondent, for

¶14

 the period between 1/8/1983 to 3/3/1985. The

¶15

 Commissioner of Central Excise by his order dated
 27/10/1997 after noting various facts and contentions

¶16

 was pleased to hold that the assessee was not entitled

¶17

 to get the benefit of exemption under Notification
 No.208/83-CE dated 1/8/1983 prior to 14/12/1984. The
 learned Commissioner was pleased to hold that the
 charges levelled in the show cause notice on merits as
 well as on time bar would not stand and accordingly
 dropped the proceedings in respect of the show cause
 notice dated 4/9/1985.

¶18

 - = : 2 : = -

¶19

 2. The appellant herein preferred an appeal
 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dated
 25th August, 2005 noted that the Commissioner observed
 that the notice did not invoke the proviso to section
 11A for demanding duty beyond the period of six months.
 It also noted by the observations made in the order of
 the Commissioner that the Commissioner has confirmed
 the duty for the period of six months prior to the
 issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal
 thereafter, considering the proviso to section 11A
 observed that unless the revenue succeed in showing
 that the respondents were indulging in suppression,
 misstatement or fraud with an intent to evade payment
 of duty, longer period cannot be justifiably invoked
 against the respondents and consequently confirmed the
 order of the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal.

¶20

 3. The question before us is whether the
 extended period could have been applied in the instant
 case. The extended period can be invoked only if the
 proviso was invoked. In the instant case, the show
 cause notice does not indicate that the proviso was
 invoked. The proviso requires that when the duty has
 not been paid, it must be by reason of fraud, collusion
 or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in
 contravention of the rules with a view to evade the
 payment of duty. This fact was not stated in the show

¶21

 - = : 3 : = -

¶22

 cause notice. In other words, the respondents had no
 notice of the same. Merely invoking the provisions of
 section 11A without invoking the proviso would not
 extend the time. Considering the finding recorded by
 the Commissioner of Central Excise and also the
 Tribunal, in our opinion, the question of law as framed
 would not arise. Consequently, the appeal is
 dismissed.

¶23

(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

¶24

(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

commissioner of central excise-thane-i v. m/s shree ram steel rolling mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

commissioner of central excise-thane-i v. m/s shree ram steel rolling mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.I.T.-Iii, Bombay. Vs Ramnord Research Laboratories Pvt.Ltd.

thee commissioner of income-tax,centrali,mum Vs m/s regal shoes

The Commissioner OFDINCOME-TAX-CITY-16 Vs Shri Rakesh Sekhsaria

M/S. Orion Commodities and Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

union of india and Anr. Vs m/s indus ind media communication Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mpil Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.