Case Law Details
Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
It has merely stated that the fact of non-payment would not come to notice but for the verification of the audit department. In the absence of any specific allegation and proof that the appellant has suppressed facts, the extended period cannot be invoked.
In the Show Cause Notice, there is no specific allegation that the appellant has willfully suppressed or mis-represented the facts with intention to evade payment of duty. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice is as under:-
“The said amount of duty has been short-paid on account of non-reversal as per the provisions of Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004. The fact of non-reversal of cenvat credit of Additional duty (4%) originally availed was not disclosed to the department and the same would not have come to notice of the department but for the verification done by Audit and the extended time limit under the proviso to section 11A(1) appears invocable for recovery of the said amounts. It therefore appears that the said differential duty is recoverable from the taxpayer under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with proviso to subsection (1) of section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
It has merely stated that the fact of non-payment would not come to notice but for the verification of the audit department. In the absence of any specific allegation and proof that the appellant has suppressed facts, the extended period cannot be invoked. There is no evidence adduced by the department that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The decisions relied by the learned counsel in the case of Kaur & Singh (supra) apply to the facts of this case. The relevant part of the order is as under:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
