citedby: 1209528

Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Cce Thane Ii on 13 September, 2019

3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not contesting confirmation of the adjudged demand on merits. However, he submitted that the proceedings initiated by the Department for confirmation of the demand is barred by limitation of time inasmuch as receipt of the subvention amount during the disputed period were reflected in the periodical ST-3 returns filed by the appellant. He also submitted that based on the audit report, the Department had issued the SCN on 16.01.2008 and based on same set of facts, another SCN was issued on 23.10.2009, which is clearly barred by limitation of time, having been issued after one 23 ST/85741/2014 year from the date of knowledge. Thus, he submits that the allegation of separation of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax cannot be leveled against the appellant and accordingly, the adjudged demand cannot be sustained. To support his stand that the SCN is barred by limitation of time, the ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of P and B Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector, reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 14 (SC.); ECE Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T., 236 (S.C.); Hyderabad Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 151 (S.C.); and Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)."

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Galaxy Indo Fab Ltd vs Cce, Lucknow on 14 July, 2010

In Escorts Limited (Ted)s case (supra), the Punjab & Haryana High Court after taking note of various decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in the case of ECE Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner, reported in 2004 (164) ELT 236 (SC); Hyderabad Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner, reported in 2004 (166) ELT 151 (SC); Nizam Sugar Factory vs Collector, reported in 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC); P and B Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector, reported in 2003 (153) ELT 14 (SC); and Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner, reported in 2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC), held that, mere failure to declare does not amount to wilful mis-declaration or wilful suppression and there must be some positive act on the part of the party to establish either wilful mis-declaration or wilful suppression and that when all the facts are before the Department and when the assessee does something under the belief that whatever the assessee is doing would make no difference and would not require specific declaration in that regard, then it would not be a case of wilful mis-declaration or wilful suppression.

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kisankraft Machine Tools Pvt Ltd vs Chennai( Port Import) on 22 March, 2024

a) P and B Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector -- 2003 (153) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.): The facts of the case are that a show cause notice was issued to the assessee proposing to demand duty on the basis of the price at which its distributor sold the goods in the course of whole sale trade on the ground that the said distributor was a related person. The assessee contended that so far as the demand of duty on the basis of the distributor being a related person is concerned, there has been no suppression of fact and all these facts were before the concerned authorities and part of earlier show cause notices, therefore, it was not open to the Central Excise authorities to invoke proviso to Section 11A of the Act for making a demand of duty for the extended period.