9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the period of dispute – Following Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad etc. [2005 (11) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] - the appellant had good reason to maintain a bonafide belief during a major part of the period of dispute that the activity did not amount to manufacture - the entire value on which duty is sought to be recovered was included by the party in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs only). The application filed by the Managing Director of the company seeks waiver and stay in respect of the penalty imposed on him. 2. After perusing the records and hearing both sides, we find that the substantive issue arising in this case is excisability of the commodities in question, which include trusses, purlins, rafters etc. fabrica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. He submits that this plea was raised in reply to the show-cause notice. We have found this submission to be correct. The learned counsel, reiterating that plea, submits that there were conflicting decisions by different Benches of this Tribunal on the above excisability issue and that the conflict was resolved by Larger Bench only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter considering the submissions of the learned Addl. Commissioner (A.R.), we are of the view that the plea of limitation raised by the learned counsel appears to be formidable at this stage and hence merits consideration. In this view of the matter, we direct the appellants to predeposit Rs. 15,56,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs and fifty six thousands only) within six weeks and report compliance to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
