2025-VIL-952-CESTAT-AHM-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Limitation, Extended period, Intent to evade duty - For the period involved in the case from 21.10.1986 to 28.11.1988, the show cause notice was issued on 11.12.1989. The appellant argued that the entire demand was barred by limitation, as at the relevant time, the normal period for issuing the show cause notice without invoking the extended period clause under Section 11A was six months - Whether the extended period can be invoked in the present case, considering the legal interpretations and the nature of the appellant being a public sector undertaking - HELD - The position stated by the appellant's counsel is legally correct and has been scrutinized up to the level of the Supreme Court in the decisions of Padmini Products v. Collector of C. Ex. and Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad - in the face of legal interpretation involved, negligence in not taking a license is not sufficient to invoke the extended period, even if the matter is decided in favor of the revenue on merits. There are shades of legal opinions on the issue and it could not be said categorically that the appellant had no reason to doubt the legal interpretation adopted by the Department. Considering the history of the litigation and the nature of the appellant being a public sector undertaking, the extended period cannot be invoked in the present case, despite the matter being decided in favor of the revenue on merits - The appeal is allowed on the ground of limitation

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page