CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
G.A. BRAHMA DEVA, LAJJA RAM, S.S. KANG, A.C.C. Unni, V.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Nizam Sugar Factory -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad -Respondent
Misc. Order No. 80/99-C Appeal No. E/801/89-C, 80 of 1999, 801 of 1989
Decided On : 04-10-1999
Per A.C.C. Unni :
This is a matter which has been referred to this Larger Bench constituted by the President by order dt. 21.6.99 pursuant to Miscellaneous Order No. 54/98-C passed by one of the Benches of this Tribunal. The question referred relates to the interpretation of Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and its proviso in particular. The Miscellaneous Order No. 54/98-C, proposing reference of the question to the Larger Bench had observed as under:
"We find that there are conflicting views on the point as to whether the date of knowledge by the Department is relevant according to the provisions of Section 11A and whether the notice issued beyond the period of six months from the date of knowledge, should be held to be barred by the limitation".
2. Before proceeding further, it will be useful to refer to the said section which reads as follows:-
"SECTION 11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. - (1) When any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, a Central Excise Officer may, within six months from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice:
Provided that where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if, for the words "six months", the words "five years" were substituted.
Explanation:- Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of six months or five years, as the case may be.
(2) The Central Excise Officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom notice is served under sub-section (1), determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person (not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined.
(3) For the purposes of this section, -
(i) "refund" includes.....
(ii) "relevant date" means, -
(a) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid
(A) where under the rules made under this Act a periodical return, showing particulars of the duty paid on the excisable goods removed during the period to which the said return relates, is to be filed by a manufacturer or a producer or a licensee of a warehouse, as the case may be, the date on which such return is so filed;
(B) where no periodical return as aforesaid is filed, the last date on which such return is to be filed under the said rules;
(C) in any other case, the date on which the duty is to be paid under this Act or the rules made thereunder;
(b) in a case where duty of excise is provisionally assessed under this Act or the rules made thereunder, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof;
(c) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has been erroneously refunded, the date of such refund."
3. Some of the decisions favouring the Revenue held as under:
In the case of M/s. Pure Drinks (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE New Delhi, 1996 (17) RLT 375 (T), the Tribunal took the view, that the time limit of five years will run from the date of the alleged removal and the period is not to be curtailed to a shorter period on the basis of the date of knowledge on the part of the Department about the alleged removal without payment of duty since no such date is envisage
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.