9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submission of the respondents that the demand is barred by limitation. Each show cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period of limitation of six months as seen herein below. Thus, we hold that the demands raised in the show cause notices adjudicating by the Commissioner in the present impugned order are time-barred and, therefore, fail on this score. In the result, we hold that while the items in dispute are excisable goods, the demands are barred by limitation - Appeal is disposed of as above. - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. Shri Vimlesh Kumar, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri R. Nambirajan, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... site or at factory premises, amounts to manufacture and the goods fall for classification under Heading 73.08 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. This decision has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of TISCO Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur (Order No. A/348/WZB/06/C-IV/EB, dated 17-2-2006 [2006 (199) E.L.T. 855 (Tribunal)] and The Oriental Construction Co. v. CCE, Pune (Order No. A/459/WZB/06/C-II/EB, dated 7-3-2006 [2006 (199) E.L.T. 503 (Tribunal)]. Following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision cited supra, we hold that the items in question are excisable goods classifiable under tariff item 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff upto 28-2-1986 and under Chapter Heading 73.08 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 for the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onflicting decisions as seen from Structurals and Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 1984 (17) E.L.T. 127 and Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd. v. CCE, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 176 and the law came to be settled in favour of the Revenue only by the Larger Bench decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. supra. We see substance in the above contention. Further in the case of Punjab Chemi-Plants Ltd. 2 ors. v. CCE, Chandigarh Final Order No. 1079-81/05, dated 26/27-12-2005 [2006 (198) E.L.T. 114 (Tribunal)] (Punjab Chemi-Plants Ltd. was one of the assessees before the Larger Bench in the case of Mahindra Mahindra), it has been held that since the issue of dutiability of structurals and parts thereof came to be concluded in favour of the Revenue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
