Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.29 seconds)
Future Link India vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 6 December, 2016 cites

M/S. Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Raipur on 22 January, 2013

9. The first issue is whether the appellant is right in contending that there was no suppression of material facts, or fraud or collusion, justifying invocation of the extended period of 5 years in this case. The court is here of the opinion that there is some substance and merit in the argument; in Uniworth (supra) there is an elaborate discussion about what constitutes "fraud" or willful suppression or misrepresentation in regard to short payment or non-payment of duty. The assessee in this case registered itself with the service tax authorities in 2009, i.e about 3 years before the issuance of the notice. Its defense regarding no knowledge about the inclusion of its SERTA 31/2016 Page 12 business activity in the statute is quite probable; in any event there is no material pointing to deliberate inaction. At the same time, this court also notices that in all the decisions cited by the revenue, the assessees were aware of their liability; they were called to book for not disclosing the true figures or production in most cases, unlike in the present case, where the appellant claims not to have been aware of its liability before its registration, in 2009. However, at the same time, having regard to the phraseology of Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, this court is unable to disturb the findings of the authorities below on this aspect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 102 - D K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 Next