9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sider this submission at all larger period is not invocable in the facts of this case - demands confirmed by the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. - E/75 & 76/10 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2011 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, J. Appearance: Shri.Mayur Shroff, Advocate for appellant Shri.N.A. Sayyad, JDR, for respondent Per: Ashok Jindal 1. The appellants filed these appeals against the impugned orders challenging the duty, interest and various penalties under the Central Excise law. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants having two units, Unit No.1 2. On 31/12/2004, the appellants transferred capital goods i.e. injection moulding machines from unit No.1 to unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants appeared and submitted that the demands against unit No.2 is barred by limitation and as well as on merits also this demand is not sustainable. He has submitted that in the show-cause notice allegation of fraud, collision, mis-statement, etc. has been alleged against the appellants. In fact it was in the knowledge of the department that the appellant has reversed the credit in March 2005 and correspondingly issued invoices on unit No.2 and on those invoice unit No.2 was taken the credit, the extended period is not invocable. In these circumstances, as there is no fraud, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evade duty are not sustainable. 8. In this scenario of facts, it was not before the adjudicating authority and the same were not considered, but these facts were brought by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals), who did not consider this submission at all. In fact when the order of Larger Bench and the subsequent order of this Tribunal dated 08/12/2008 placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) he would have considered the same and had to pass the appropriate order when there is no intention to evade duty, larger period is not invocable in the facts of this case. It is an admitted fact that the show-cause notice is issued beyond the statutory period of one year, hence, the larger period is not invocable in this case. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
