9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/596 and 3870/2006 - Final Order Nos. A/285-286/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 12-3-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Mathew John, JJ. Shri Vikrant, Advocate, for the Assessee. Shri S.R. Meena, AR, for the Department. ORDER Both appeals one filed by assessee and other filed by the Revenue, are being taken together for final disposal as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that M/s. K.C. Alloys and Castings were engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and were selling the same to M/s. Monga Brothers Ltd., who are engaged in the manufacture of hot rolled products (rounds bars). The Revenue entertaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto account the combined figures attributable to all three units of M/s. Monga Brothers Ltd. Accordingly, he got the cost of production verified by another chartered account and held that the short demand is to the extent of Rs. 80,650/-. Accordingly, he confirmed the said and vacated the show cause notice relatable to demand of Rs. 17,15,016/-. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 80,650/- upon the assessee. 4. Both sides i.e. assessee as also Revenue has challenged the present impugned order before the Tribunal. 5. We find that the appeals can be disposed of on short ground of Revenue neutrality as also on the point of limitation. Admittedly when their factory was visited by the central excise officers and it was pointed out to them that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit by M/s. Monga Brothers Ltd., there could be no occasion or reason available to adjust their duty liability less by Rs. 80,650/-. As such, it cannot be held that there is any suppression of facts on their part. Otherwise also, we find that the duty was paid by the appellant in the year 2001 whereas the show cause notice questioned the correctness of the cost and was issued in the year 2005. As such, we are of the view that the demand is barred by limitation and the same is not sustainable. The impugned order confirming the demand is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the assessee. 8. Inasmuch as the assessee s appeal stands allowed, the Revenue s appeal against that part of the order of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
