Central Excise Appeal No. 178 of 2006 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Central Excise Appeal No. 178 of 2006
Date of decision : 22.8.2008
Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate,
Jalandhar (Hqrs. at Chandigarh) ..... Appellant
vs
M/s. Amar Singh and Company ..... Respondent
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. M. P. Devnath, Mr. K. L. Goyal, and
Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocates, for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 35G of
the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the order passed by the Customs,
Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 26.4.2006,
raising the following substantial questions of law :-
i) Whether CESTAT was correct in not going into the
merits of the case regarding the dutibility of the
product, when the remand order by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and subsequently order by the larger
bench of the CESTAT specifically contained
directions for deciding the dutiability of the product ?
ii) Whether CESTAT was justified in deciding the case
on a new ground i.e. limitation, when the remand
order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is specific that
both the parties were at the liberty to produce
additional evidence only ?
iii) Whether the extended period of limitation is
invokable in cases where incomplete information is
supplied by a person other than the manufacturer of
the goods particularly in the event when the
information supplied by that person is vague,
incorrect and misleading ?”
Central Excise Appeal No. 178 of 2006 2
An identical issue came up for consideration before this court
in Central Excise Appeal No. 125 of 2006 titled as Commr. Of C. Ex.,
Ludhiana vs Avon Cycles Ltd., which was dismissed vide order dated
20.11.2006. It was opined therein that on the facts on record it could not be
opined that the assessee had in any manner suppressed the facts entitling the
revenue to invoke the extended period of limitation.
For the reasons stated in Avon Cycle’s case (supra), we do not
find any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
22.8.2008 (Hemant Gupta)
vs. Judge