9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossain, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The Revenue being aggrieved with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has filed the present appeal. As per facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said goods were chargeable to duty in terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be confirmed against them and penalty should not be imposed upon them. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the original authority who confirmed the demand and also imposed the penalty. 3. On appeal against the above Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 4. We have heard both sides duly represented by Shri N.K. Mishra, learned J.D.R. and Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty liability under Section 3A of the Act, the Department is at liberty to proceed for recovery of the same in accordance with law. But the duty for the second time cannot be confirmed against the cast articles. 6. As regards limitation, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the demand has been confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation. The respondents had filed a declarati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In any case, we also do not find any merits in the Revenue s Appeal. The entire case of the Department is that the duty paid by the respondents in respect of the cast iron has been adjusted against their total duty liability in respect of MS Ingots. If that be so, the short-fall is in respect of duty-demand on ingots as per the provisions of Section 3A and it cannot be said that cast articles h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
