9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent maintained that the activity of crushing limestone amounted to manufacture and hence, directed the party by show cause notice, to pay Central excise duty during the period November, 1988 to December, 1991; that the dispute which so arose eventually culminated in the party's appeal before the Tribunal; that the Tribunal by final order dated 17-6-1994 held that the activity of crushing limestone amounted to manufacture within the meaning of this term under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Salt Act, but did not uphold the department's plea that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act on the ground of suppression of facts with intent to evade Central Excise duty was invokable against the party; t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid the Central excise duty as demanded by the Department. The lower appellate authority has, however, upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellants had violated Central Excise Rules. It is stated in the grounds of appeal, and reiterated by the learned Advocate for the appellants at present, that the entire duty demanded for the aforesaid periods was paid by the appellants in acceptance of the final order dated 17-6-1994 of the Tribunal in their earlier case to the effect that duty was payable on the process of crushing of limestone. The learned Advocate, Shri Pragyan Sharma further submits that the Tribunal has already found in its aforesaid final order that the appellants had a bona fide beli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the activity of crushing of limestone did not amount to manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Salt Act and was, therefore, not exigible to Central exise duty. They maintained such belief till the Tribunal passed its order dated 17-6-1994 holding that the aforesaid activity amounted to 'manufacture'. The periods in question in the present appeal are, indisputably prior to 17-6-1994. Thus, it appears, that all the circumstances which had persuaded the party to maintain the bona fide belief as above in the earlier round of litigation did exist as such during the periods in disput in the present appeals too. Therefore, the observations of the Tribunal as contained in the said order dated 17-6-1994 with regard to the conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
