2014 (4) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he issue is held in favour of the assessee by the Commissioner of Central Excise and the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Revenue and upheld the demand of normal period of limitation. In these circumstances, particularly in view of the contention of the applicants regarding availability of credit, we find that amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the appeals. Pre-deposit of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ling and affixing of MRP on the automobile parts. The applicants contested the demand on the ground that the parts are earthmoving equipment which are not automobile. 4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation and also imposed penalties. The adjudicating authority held that the goods are liable to confiscation and imposed redemption fine. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 24 crores for the whole period. The applicant has already deposited Rs.27 crores in cash during the pendency of the adjudicating proceedings which is sufficient for hearing of the appeals. 7. The Revenue relies upon the finding of the adjudicating authority and submitted that in the circumstances of the present case the extended period of limitation is invokable. Revenue also relies upon th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X