9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. The ld. Counsel Mr. Santhanam appearing for the appellants submitted that the manufacturing operation was conducted by them from 1-9-97 to 31-3-2000 which was well-known to the Department in a Compound Levy Scheme by virtue of their discharge of duty liability every month. The entire fact was known to the records of the Revenue till the SCN was issued on 20th January, 2004. All of a sudde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and unfair. Furthermore, his submission was that when the authorities acted on a post-dated circular to bring an untaxed situation to be taxed that shall be disturbing a settled position creating chaos. Therefore, any interference to the past rights of the appellant would cause a chaotic situation and Revenue shall in no way be benefited by this action invoking Section 11A of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the situation. When the Board Circular was issued on 20th January, 2003, the Department woke up only on 20th January, 2004 i.e. exactly after one year. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable for lack of jurisdiction at the material period. 1.4 The ld. JDR appearing for Revenue vehemently argued that when the circular dated 20-1-2003 made very clear that the steel formers being a dutiable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The impugned period being 1-9-1997 to 31-3-2007, entire activities carried out by the appellants was known to the Revenue much before the circular issued on 20th January, 2003. The matter had reached finality. Any re-opening by change of opinion is to resort to unending litigation. It has been observed by the Tribunal in the case of Prince Rollings (P) Ltd. (cited supra) that the SCN was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
