Case Law Details
IDCOL Ferro Chrome & Alloys Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Orissa High Court)
Court is unable to find any valid explanation offered by the Department in delaying in issuing the initial SCN under Section 11A of the CE Act, 4 years after the period of demand and then, more importantly, taking 16 years to retrieve the matter from the Call Book
In CCE v. Cemphar Drugs and Liniments 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC), the Supreme Court observed as under:
“In order to make the demand for duty sustainable beyond a period of six months and up to a period of 5 years in view of the proviso to subsection 1 1A of the Act, it has to be established that the duty of excise has not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid, or erroneously refunded by reasons of either fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules made thereunder, with intent to evade payment of duty. Something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability, beyond the period of six months. Whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.”
High Court quashes the impugned SCN dated 11th March, 1999 and all proceedings consequent thereto including the impugned notice dated 26th May, 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
