LexM/S. LARSEN AND TUBRO LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-II
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' 1 ' MIS. LARSEN AND TUBRO LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-II MAY2, 2007 [S.B. SINHAANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.] Central Excise Act, 1944-s. I IA-Extended period of limitation- /nvocation of, in the second show cause notice on the ground of suppression A B of facts-When original show cause notice demanding excise duty was C withdrawn, where allegation of suppression was not made-Held: Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked subsequently as the facts alleged to have been suppressed by assessee were known to the Revenue-Also the assessee had pleaded bonafide. Appellant undertook a contract for constructioir of bridges for Public D Sector Undertaking. Appellant manufactured PSC Girders and used to transport them to the site of construction of bridges of the Railways. It did not register itself with the authorities of the Central Excise. Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants alleging that it was involved in the manufacturing activity but did not pay any excise duty and the said notice was withdrawn. Another show cause notice was issued and extended period of E limitation was invoked alleging suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Commissioner of Central Excise held that the manufacturer of PSC Girders would come within the purview of construction of the bridges and the same would not be immovable property; and that the longer period oflimitation has rightly been invoked as the appellant had suppressed the fact from the F department that the goods were excisable articles. Appellant filed appeal which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It was not a case where element of suppression extended to G apply to extended period of limitation. It is also not a case where the appellant did not plead bona fide. It is furthermore not a case where the Tribunal and consequently this Court, could have arrived at a finding that the appellant took recourse to suppressio veri. (Para 13] (1146-E, F] 1141 H 1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. A 1.2. Acts of fraud or suppression, must be specifically pleaded. The allegations in regard to suppression of facts must be clear and explicit so as to enable the notice to reply thereto effectively. It was not the case of the Revenue that the activities of the appellant were not known to it. (Para 14) (1146-GJ B 1.3. Admittedly, when the first show cause notice was issued, the extended period of limitation was not resorted to. A notice should ordinarily be issued within a period of six months (as the law then stood) i.e. within the prescribed period of limitation but only in exceptional cases, the said period could be extended to 5 years. When in the original notice, such an allegation C had not been made, that the same could not have been made subsequently as the facts alleged to have been suppressed by the appellant were known to them. [Para 151 (1146-G; 1147-AJ 1.4. Extension of the period of limitation entails both civil and criminal consequences and, therefore, must be specifically stated in the show cause D notice, in absence whereof the Court would be entitled to raise an inference that the case was not one where the extended period of limitation could be invoked. [Para 191 [1149-B, q 1.5. Appellant as also the Public Sector Undertaking raised a definite plea of bona fide which had not been rejected. As a matter of fact, while E considering imposition of penalty under s. 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the Commissioner has refused to impose any penalty upon the appellant on the premise that it was not guilty of any act of mala fide. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Revenue was not justified in invoking the extended period oflimitation in the instant case. [Para 20) [1149-D, El F P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, (2003) 153 ELT 14 SC; Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. (2006[ 197 ELT 465 SC; ECE Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2004[ 13 SCC 719 = (2004[ 164 ELT 236; Commissioner a/Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Mis. Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd, [2006[ 7 SCC 431, G referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2990 of2006. From the Final Order No. A/329/WZB/06/C-Ill/EB dated 16.02.2006 in Appeal No. E/3634/98-Mum passed by the Customs, Excise and S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.