Fourth Dimension India Private Limited vs Bangalore-Iii on 10 April, 2024
(ii) Okay Play (India) Ltd vs. CCE, Delhi-III: 2005 (180) ELT
300 (SC)
Page 10
E/21974, 21978/2015
3.11 On the issue of limitation, the learned advocate for
the appellant submitted that all the facts are within the
knowledge of the Department. The factory was visited by the
preventive officers in August 2004 and statement of the Manager
was recorded on 31.8.2004. Records for the previous financial
year is including sales invoices for 2003-04, 2004-05, purchase
invoices have been withdrawn. The Range Superintendent had
advised by letter dated 18.10.200 4 to take registration for
manufacture of 'parts of illuminated signs' falling under CETH
9405.90. They had furnished all details as required by the
Department. However, the Department did not take any action
for the earlier period. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner
that they have discontinued the practice of supply material to
the vendors for conversion into promotional materials was
trading and not manufacturing like present activities, cannot
stand to the reasons. The department would have initiated
recovery proceedings for the past period for the activities of
manufacture undertaken, even if the same has been
discontinued further. Therefore, invoking extended period of
limitation on the allegation of suppression of fact cannot be
sustainable as held in a number of judgements. The following
judgements have been relied upon by the appellant.