CEA No. 12 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Central Excise Appeal No.12 of 2009 Decided on : 24-4-2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar (Headquarters at Chandigarh) ....Appellant VERSUS M/s Knit Fould Pvt. Ltd. (Unit 2), Deowal Road, Village Chak Gujran, PO- Niara, District Hoshiarpur ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J The instant appeal filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act 1944 is directed against order dated June 20, 2008 ( Annexure A-3) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity the 'Tribunal') concluding that there is no evidence to suggest intention to evade payment of duty by the dealer-respondent. It has further been held that there was dispute concerning interpretation and invoking of the extended period of limitation in respect of demand of duty as per the provisions of Section 11(AC) of the Act. The Tribunal found that invoking extended period of limitation was not warranted and the imposition of penalty was also not justified. It is appropriate to mention that the dealer-respondent has two units one at Kapurthala and other at CEA No. 12 of 2009 2 Hoshiarpur. The dealer-respondent had filed classification list in respect of their unit at Hoshiarpur. They have also indicated that there is another unit owned by them at Kapurthala alongwith details of clearance of products covered under notification 8/99 in respect of Kapurthala unit. They failed to furnish the details and value of clearance of the products in respect of Kapurthala unit covered under notification no. 5/99. It is in the background of the aforesaid facts that the Tribunal has concluded that to infer intention to evade duty would not be warranted once the dealer-respondent has disclosed the existence of their second unit at Kapurthala albeit without disclosing the details and value of clearance of products covered under notification no.5/99. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts we are not inclined to take a view different than the view taken by the Tribunal with regard to intention to evade payment of duty. Had there been an intention of non-payment of duty then the dealer-respondent would not at the first place, have declared the existence of their second unit at Kapurthala. The invocation of the extended period of limitation in such like cases would also not be warranted. There is thus no merit in appeal as no substantive question of law has been raised within the meaning of Section 35(G) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE April 24, 2009 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) rekha JUDGE