Cce Vs. Glass Machine Spares

Cce vs Glass Machine Spares

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 27, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16847

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/16847
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Sreedharan, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Sep 27, 1999
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Glass Machine Spares

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(68)ECC606

Excerpt

.....issue that has come up for decision in this appeal is 'relevant date' for the purpose of raising demand under section 11a. section 11a itself defines 'relevant date' and it reads as under: (a) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid (a) where under the rules made under this act a periodical return showing particulars of the duty paid on the excisable goods removed during the period to which the said return relates, is to be filed by a manufacturer or a producer or a license of a warehouse, as the case may be, the date on which such return is so filed.it is clear from the above that time limit for show cause notice is to be reckoned from the date on which monthly returns for assessment are filed. in the instant case, in respect of goods cleared in november 1986, the return was required to be filed in the succeeding month i.e., on 7.12.86. therefore, the revenue are right in their submission that the entire demand from november onwards was within time. during hearing learned departmental representative has also drawn or attention to the decision of this tribunal in cce v. vapi paper mills 1998 (104) elt 780 wherein the tribunal held that 'relevant date is to be reckoned by reference to clause (a) or sub-clause (a) of section 11a(3)(ii). in this view of the matter, the appeal of the revenue merits acceptance.the same is accordingly allowed and the order of the additional collector holding the demand as time-barred for november and december 1986 is set aside. jurisdictional assistant commissioner is directed to work out the amount of duty involved during this period and to take necessary action to recover the same.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue. Under his adjudication Order 119/92 dated 7.5.92, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I held the show cause notice dated 5.6.87 to be time barred in respect of demand prior to 5.1.87 on account of the show cause notice being issued beyond a period of six months. The Revenue has contended in the appeal that the Collector's order is erroneous inasmuch as it is in violation of the provisions regarding "relevant date" stipulated in Section 11A(3)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice.

Therefore we are deciding this case after hearing the Departmental Representative.

3. The issue that has come up for decision in this appeal is 'relevant date' for the purpose of raising demand under Section 11A. Section 11A itself defines 'relevant date' and it reads as under: (a) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid (A) where under the rules made under this Act a periodical return showing particulars of the duty paid on the excisable goods removed during the period to which the said return relates, is to be filed by a manufacturer or a producer or a license of a warehouse, as the case may be, the date on which such return is so filed.

It is clear from the above that time limit for show cause notice is to be reckoned from the date on which monthly returns for assessment are filed. In the instant case, in respect of goods cleared in November 1986, the return was required to be filed in the succeeding month i.e., on 7.12.86. Therefore, the Revenue are right in their submission that the entire demand from November onwards was within time. During hearing Learned Departmental Representative has also drawn or attention to the decision of this Tribunal in CCE v. Vapi Paper Mills 1998 (104) ELT 780 wherein the Tribunal held that 'relevant date is to be reckoned by reference to Clause (A) or Sub-clause (a) of Section 11A(3)(ii). In this view of the matter, the appeal of the Revenue merits acceptance.

The same is accordingly allowed and the order of the Additional Collector holding the demand as time-barred for November and December 1986 is set aside. Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is directed to work out the amount of duty involved during this period and to take necessary action to recover the same.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Glass Machine Spares Same Subject Excise Same Judge K Sreedharan, N T C.N.B.