9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate for the appellant Shri Manish Mohan, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal: Heard both the sides. 2. After hearing both the sides at length, we find that the issue involved in this case is of very narrow compass and, therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit, we take up the appeals also for final disposal, as agreed by both the sides. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of corrugated boxes. During the period November 2002 to March 2007 the appellants also undertook job-work apart from manufacturing the corrugated boxes for themselves. As the appellants were under the impression t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and at no point of time it was asked by the departmental officers that the appellants are liable to pay Central Excise duty on their job-work charges. As the appellants are regularly filing the declarations showing sales and job-work charges separately in their annual return, therefore, the allegation of suppression is not sustainable. Since the allegation of suppression is not sustainable, the extended period of limitation also cannot be invoked. Therefore, these demands are barred by limitation as the show-cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. He further relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.B. Maheshwari vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Valsad 2007 (218) ELT 555 (Tri.-Ahmd.). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icates mala fide intentions. Ignorance of law to be presumed and the assessee was filing declaration regularly. No mala fide can be found. Therefore, the demand was held to be barred by limitation. 7. In this case also we find that the appellants were filing their declarations showing their job-work charges and sales separately on regular basis. Therefore, the allegation of suppression is not sustainable. Therefore, the show-cause notice for the period 2002 to 2006 issued by invoking the extended period of limitation in March, 2007 is not sustainable. Hence the impugned order confirming the duty, interest and penalties against the appellants are not sustainable and hence set aside. 8. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
