Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1867/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1867 of 2009
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
- CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VADODARA-II - Appellant(s)
Versus
JETEX
CARBURETORS PVT LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
AMEE YAJNIK for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 03/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Revenue
is in appeal against judgement of the tribunal dated 22.1.2009
seeking to raise following question of law :
“Whether
CESTAT is right in allowing the Assessee’s appeal on the ground of
limitation that extended period of 5 years is not invokable, when
there is a clear cut case of suppression of information from the
department by the Assessee, mis-statement and contraventions of the
provisions of the law and inherent intent to evade the payment of
duty in such acts of the Assessee resulting in evasion of duty?
However,
upon hearing counsel for the appellant and perusal of the order of
the tribunal, we find that entire question is based on apprehension
of facts. Tribunal found as a matter of fact that there was no
suppression of fact or misstatement so as to permit extended period
of limitation. Tribunal observed that for period under consideration,
there was a permission required for removal of goods for job work and
therefore, it cannot be said that department was not aware of the
fact of removal. It was also noticed that permission could have been
issued only after considering the process to be undertaken by the
job worker. Since the process of manufacturing raw material and
finished product were indicated to the department, it cannot be said
that the department was not aware of the facts.
This
conclusion of the tribunal is based on material on record and since
we find that no perversity is pointed out, we do not find any
substantial question of law arising in the appeal.
Appeal
is dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J.)
(raghu)
Top