9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also imposed on the appellant. On appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, Tribunal vide its order dated 11-5-1999 held that there is no duty liability on brass dross (ravali) but other products brass ingots/pittal pat is liable to duty. The relevant observation of the Tribunal are extracted as below :- 8. However, we observe that the further process of manufacture on part of the ravali undertaken by the appellants by use of furnaces and moulding them into dyes in the form of petal pat would amount to a process of manufacture because a completely new product, known to the market, has been brought into existence. It is bought and should also in that form as a different product. We, therefore, hold that pittal patt manufactured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on pittal pat and for imposing a suitable penalty, if any, in the light of the above directions. 2. After dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order wherein he has re-quantified the amount of duty liability as Rs. 22,13,959/- and has also imposed penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs. 3. Shri Vipul Khandhar, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellants submits that the period involved in the case is June 1983 to December 1984 whereas the show cause notice was issued in 1988. He submits that since show cause notice was issued on 28-2-1989, the demand prior to 28-2-1984 was barred by limitation. He also submitted that total amount of duty involved in respect of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised at any stage. Further, the observations of the Tribunal is clearly with regard to application of extended period and not relating to the demand beyond the period of limitation. In any case, the appellants had not at all raised the issue of operation of the demand being beyond the extended time limit of 5 years. In view of the above, the demand for duty confirmed against the appellant has to be reduced to Rs. 20,22,895/- as claimed. I am unable to agree with the ld. Advocate that penalty is not imposable in view of the decision of the Tribunal in Indian Explosives Limited wherein the goods manufactured were intermediate products and therefore the issue is not comparable. Further, Tribunal has already observed while remanding the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
