Extended Period of Limitation - Knowledge of Department is not Relevant: CESTAT LB
IN Union Quality Plastics Vs CCE, Vapi - 2009-TIOL-326-CESTAT-AHM, the CESTAT referred the following issue to the Larger Bench.
"Whether the show cause notice issued after a period of six months from the date of visit of the officer or from the date of completion of investigations, as reflected in the show cause notice, is barred by limitation in terms of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, or the notice can be issued within extended period of five years from the date of visit?"
The Larger Bench of the Tribunal recently decided the case. The LB noted,
The issue is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of the jurisdictional, High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I Vs. Neminath Fabrics Pvt Ltd reported in (). The High Court ruled that whenever there is non-levy or short levy of duty with an intention to evade payment of duty, or any of the circumstances enumerated in the Proviso to Section 11A(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; such suppression or willful omission is either admitted or demonstrated, invocation of the extended period of limitation would be justified; and that the proviso cannot interpreted to mean that since Revenue has knowledge of suppression, the extended period of limitation cannot be legitimately invoked.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the reference becomes infructuous since the issue is governed by the ratio propounded in Neminath Fabrics Pvt Ltd. It is so declared. The appeals will now be placed before the appropriate Bench for adjudication on merits .