9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he casting, on pro-rata basis. The demand stand raised against them for the period December, 1996 to August, 1998 by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 11.9.01, i.e. by invoking the longer period of limitation. 2. Learned advocate Shri B.L. Narasimhan, appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that the issue on merits stand decided against them by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. vs CCE [2000 (117) ELT 578(Tri)]. However, he assails the demand on the point of limitation. 3. Elaborating his arguments, learned advocate submits that earlier also a show cause notice was issued to them on 3.2.97 raising demand of duty on the identical ground of inclusion of value of patterns in the value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or on completion of the Order. The Supreme Court has held in the case of National Radio and Electronics Ltd. (supra) that the larger period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act is not invokable when the assessee has furnished the copies of the contract for the sale of the computers and this contract showed the entitlement of the assessee to collect charges for maintenance during the warranty period. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the said decision an application of mind by the Excise Authorities concerned would have revealed to them that the Appellants were entitled to collect such charges. There was no suppression in this behalf by the Appellants.Further, it is not in dispute that the show cause notice came to be issued on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ld. Advocate fairly agrees that the issue stands decided by the larger bench in the case Mutual Industries Ltd. vs. CCE-2000(117) ELT 578 (Tri.-LB). He assailed the impugned order on the point of limitation by submitting that there was contrary decisions during the relevant period, the law was not clear which subsequently was declared against the assessee by the larger bench. As such, he submits that when there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal which is an expert body, the appellant cannot be saddled with any malafide intent or suppression or mis-statement of facts. For the purpose, he draws our attention to the various decision of the Tribunal wherein benefit of limitation stands extended to the assessees, by observing that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
