Court :
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ;
Brief :
Mere failure to pay duty and/or take out a licence which is not due to any fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact or contravention of any provision is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation -
Citation :
CCE Vs M/s Fermenta Pharma Biodil Ltd (Dated: September 3, 2008)
CCE Vs M/s Fermenta Pharma Biodil Ltd (Dated: September 3, 2008)
Mere failure to pay duty and/or take out a licence which is not due to any fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact or contravention of any provision is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation - the Department has failed to point out any positive act on the part of the manufacturer which could be said to be fraudulent, collusive or amounted to making a willful mis -statement etc. In the present case the Company had not hidden or mis -stated the product which it was manufacturing. It had clearly given the name of the product. Its claim was that it fell under item 3002.00. This list was accepted by the Department. The assessee had not made any misstatement of facts nor had done any positive act to mis -lead the Department. This statement may have been wrong but it cannot be said to have been made with an intention to defraud the State. It would be difficult to hold that such a mistake was a willful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Limitation - one year, not six months - It is thus obvious that when the Department has given its approval the main provision of Section 11-A will apply and the limitation will be one year. The period of limitation for which recovery can be made would be one year and not six months as held by the CEGAT. :HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ;
CAclubindia
