9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants is different from the angle, plates, sections etc. of aluminium and had acquired a new name before getting fitted on to the building and therefore is liable to excise duty. c. the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE [2005(190) ELT 301 (Tri. LB)] settled the dispute against the assessee. d. the demand of the duty is not barred by limitation inasmuch as even prior to the decision of the Larger Bench, the matter was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Man Structurals Ltd. [2001(130) ELT 401 (SC)] and as the applicants claimed that they were following the judicial pronouncements to decide if the impugned goods are excisable, this particular decisions of the Hon'ble Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of an immovable property and not the individual items. e. That apart from the contention on the merits of the case, the entire demand is barred by limitation, for the very reason that prior to the decision of the larger bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra, which has been relied upon by the lower authorities and which was rendered only in November 2005, there were series of decisions which considered the activity identical to the activities as undertaken by the appellants as not amounting to manufacture. f. That after the decision of the larger bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra also, there have been decisions in favour of the assessees g. That when different views have been taken by the Courts and the matter stood referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion has been reached that extended period was invocable and invocation of extended period is always a question of mixture of facts and law. Facts have to be analysed and correct facts found and thereafter the law has to be applied. While it is true that when an issue is under dispute, extended period may not be invocable but what weight with the Tribunal in coming to the decision was the fact that whether the appellants had grounds to entertain a bona fide belief during the relevant time. On this basis, the Tribunal proceeded and came to the conclusion that on the basis of facts the decisions that existed during the relevant time, the appellants could not have entertained a bona fide belief. Therefore, the ROM application may be rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting the aluminium sections into sizes. The appellants could not have applied the decisions which were in force during the relevant time which related to cutting and drilling holes to their case unless the process was limited to the same whereas the findings are otherwise. Even then the Tribunal examined and recorded a finding in para 9 that the activity involved is correctly described as semi-unitized glazing system and the Tribunal took note of the fact that the assessee fabricated parts of structures and therefore it cannot be said that the Tribunal did not consider this aspect. Moreover, the Tribunal also considered the decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and also the case of Man Structu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
