- (1.) We have heard Mr. Maity who urges for admission of the appeal on the various grounds as mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal and with emphasis, on ground No. VIII at page 16 of admission of application which is quoted hereunder: For that the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate and interpret correctly the provision of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and should have once it has held that there has been suppression with evade to payment of duty the period of five years is automatically attracted.
(2.) This matter has a past history which, we feel, ought to be recorded. This matter was reheard by the learned Tribunal pursuant to the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27th November, 2008 [2009 (236) E.L.T. A54 (S.C.)]. The operative portion of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted hereunder ... By our separate judgment today in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-5892 of 2000 we have set aside the order of CEGAT and remitted the matter to it to be dealt with afresh. The decision in the said case shall apply to the facts of the present case. The appeal will be heard afresh by the appropriate Bench of CEGAT which is presently known as Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short CESTAT).
(3.) Pursuant to the said direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the matter was reheard by the Tribunal and allowed the appeal of the Appellant by judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010 [, 2010 (257) E.L.T. 568 (Tri.-Kol.)]. It appears that the learned Tribunal had allowed the matter and set aside the order impugned before it on the ground of limitation. It is submitted by Mr. Maity that on the facts and circumstances of the case the extended period of limitation in proviso of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1940 is applicable.;