9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not, no justification for imposition of penalty on the appellant, order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - A/708/2005 - A/934/2011-WZB/AHD, - Dated:- 18-5-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After rejecting the request for adjournment made by the ld. Advocate, we proceed to decide the appeal itself. Accordingly, we have heard Shri R.S. Sangia ld. SDR and have gone through the impugned order. It is seen that the duty of Rs. 41,04,217/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs, Four Thousands, Two Hundreds and Seventeen Only) stand confirmed against the appellant for the period 1998-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment in the case of Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2002 (50) RLT 177 (Tribunal), as affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.). As such, it is clear that during the relevant period, various decisions and judgments held the activity as not amounting to manufacture. As such, we are only required to deal with the plea of limitation. 2. The appellants in their written submission, have relied upon the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.), wherein it was observed that when there is a bona fide doubt as to non-excisability of the goods due to divergent views of Hon ble Courts, extended period of 5 years cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the demand raised beyond the period of limitation, by invoking extended period, is barred. As such, irrespective of the fact as to whether the appellants themselves have undertaken the said activity or not, the demand is required to be quashed on the above issue itself. Ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue have placed on record the written submissions, which we find are mainly dealing with issues other than limitation. Inasmuch as we are not expressing any opinion on other issues, we do not deem it fit to deal with the various issues in the written submission of ld. SDR. 5. As we have already held the demand as barred by limitation and the same is required to be set aside on this ground, we find no justification for imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
