KAMAKHYA TRANSFORMERS Vs. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Commissioner Central Excise And Service Tax
Click here to view full judgement.
Ajit Singh, J. -
(1.) Mr. S.S. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents.
(3.) The appellant was issued show cause notice why Central Excise Duty be not demanded and recovered from it under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest thereon in terms of Section 11AA and also why penalty should not be imposed in terms of Section 11AC. The appellant responded to the show cause notice and inter alia contended that demand was barred by limitation. But the respondent did not agree with the appellant and by an order passed on 11.01.2017 rejected its contention. The respondent also approved the demand of amount mentioned in the show cause notice along with interest thereon and even imposed penalty on the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and reiterated that the demand was barred by limitation. Although by the impugned order, the Tribunal has remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh de novo decision on merit, the objection of appellant that the demand was barred by limitation has been rejected on the ground that the department is entitled to the extended period of limitation for raising the demand. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.