9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AR.) PER : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against eh impugned order demanding duty interest and penalty by denying the input credit on the inputs secured by them. During the period October, 2006 to March 2009 on the premises that activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. A redemption fine of Rs. 94 lakhs was also imposed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Ajinkya Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II reported in 2013 (288) E.L.T. 247 (Tri-Mumbai). 4. On the other hand Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submitted that the activity of cutting and packing undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and at the time of visit there was no activity being undertaken by them. Therefore, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, admittedly Show Cause Notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. As the activity undertaken by the appellant was in the knowledge of the department, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Further, we find that as per the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra) wherein this Tribunal held that although the activity undertaken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
