Back
GOPINATH P.
Kalyan Jewellers India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Central Tax & Central Excise – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of gold, diamond, silver and other articles of jewellery, has filed the present writ petition challenging Ext.P19 show cause notice which, has been issued alleging contravention of certain provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Articles of Jewellery (Collection of Duty) Rules, 2016 and the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. The principal contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P19 show cause notice is issued without jurisdiction and beyond the normal period of limitation provided in Section 11A(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in the complete absence of circumstances which would enable the respondent department from invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is also submitted that the activity of 'hedging' engaged in by the petitioner and which forms a subject matter of the show cause notice (at least in part) is clearly a trading activity and is clearly outside the scope of the provisions in the Finance Act, 1994 relating to levy of service tax.
3. Ms. Aparna Nandakumar, the learned Counsel appearing
Point of Law : There is absolutely no lack of jurisdiction in issuance of show cause notice warranting invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 can only be invoked with allegations of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention o....
The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked without clear evidence of fraud or suppression of facts; mere omissions do not justify such actions.
Show cause notices issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944, are invalid if based on non-statutory norms and issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 11A(11).
In cases of revenue disputes, undue delay in adjudication of show cause notices violates fundamental rights and regulatory statutes, rendering them invalid.
Extended limitation period for tax demands requires evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; mere non-payment is insufficient.
The court established that suppression of facts for extending limitation requires deliberate intent to evade duty, not mere failure to act.
The demand for CENVAT Credit was barred by limitation as the respondent disclosed all relevant details, and no evidence of willful misstatement or suppression was presented.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
