9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anfac Industries Ltd. [2012 (6) TMI 640 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - old waste and scrap generated through breaking of the capital goods or crushing or hammer of the same does not result in emergence of any excisable goods - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 1998/2006-EX(DB) - FO ORDER NO._58180/2013 - Dated:- 9-10-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Manmohan Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Alok Arora, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Praveen Sharma, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Ms. Shweta Bector, learned DR appearing for the revenue and Shri Parveen Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since this fact was never disclosed by the appellants to the department either in their ER-1 or through any written communication by the party, it was therefore, clear that they had suppressed these facts from the department with intent to evade payment of duty. Further scrutiny of records revealed that during the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2004, the appellants had evaded Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 5,05,702/-. 5. The Respondents were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 03.01.2005 raising demand of duty for the period in question. The Show cause notice resulted in confirmation of demand of duty along with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty. 6. On appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above discussion and findings, I find that the ratio of the above case law is applicable in this case also and therefore, I hold that the impugned goods were not liable to Central Excise duty and the adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty in his impugned order on the wrong premises of the law. Since the duty is not leviable in this case, invoking of provisions of extended period of limitation or/and imposition of an equal amount of penalty is not sustainable. 7. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal as detailed below:- 1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Tudor India Ltd. 2011 (272) ELT 405 (Tri. Ahmd.) 2. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondich ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
