Revenue tried to enforce extended period provisions under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, yet Tribunal held it was not justified. Held no substantial question of law.
Appeal dismissed but without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
915-CEXA.250.2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2016
The Principal Commissioner } of Central Excise, Pune-I } Appellant versus M/s. Trans Engineers India } Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent
Mr. Swapnil Bangur with Mr. Sham Walve for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE :- JANUARY 16, 2018
P.C. :-
are unable to agree. It is undisputed that the show cause notice
Page 1 of 2
J.V.Salunke,PA
915-CEXA.250.2016.doc
invoked the extended period. That is beyond a normal period of one year. For the extended period to be invoked, there are certain pre-requisites and pre-conditions, which the Revenue has to satisfy in terms of the statutory provision, namely, section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal found from the factual matters that there were not one, but two audits and the second one was for the overlapping period. If during both, the Revenue could not trace out anything, which was held back by the assessee or was unable to unearth from the records the necessary materials to allege suppression, then, the invocation of the extended period was impermissible. There were no materials to indicate that there is any short payment of duty with intent to evade service tax.
(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
J.V.Salunke,PA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal requires adjudication when the Tribunal's finding of fact defeats the Revenue's contention.
Whether the appeal succeeds in absence of perversity or error of law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I
M/s. Trans Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI
Bharati H. Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
