Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Valley Abrasive Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 November, 2001
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. The appellant company has made a prayer for decision on merits. Accordingly, we have heard the learned J.D.R., Shri D.K. Bhowmick for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned Order.
2. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we find that the demand of duty in question is barred by limitation. The period involved in the present appeal is for March, 1997 and the show cause notice has been issued on 24.10.97. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned Order has observed that RT-12 returns for the month of March, 1997 was acknowledged on 28.4.97 and as such, the notice issued on 24.10.97 is well within the period of six months of the receipt o the RT-12 returns. On the other hand, the appellants' contention is that RT-12 returns were filed on 5.4.97 in the Office of the Range Superintendent. As such, the time-limit will start from the date of filing of RT-12 returns and not from the date of acknowledgement of the same by the Department. We agree with the above contention of the appellant company. The relevant date as prescribed under the provisions of Section 11A is the date of filing of RT-12 returns or the date by which the said returns should have been filed and not the date when the returns filed by the assessee get acknowledged by the Department. Inasmuch as the RT-12 returns were filed on 5.4.97, the normal period of limitation expired on 5.10.97. The show cause notice issued on 24.10.97 is thus beyond the normal period of six months. Accordingly, we find that the time in question is barred by limitation and allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned Order.
Dictated in the open court.