9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant. 2. It is seen that the demand of Rs. 1,71,40,806/- stands confirmed against the appellant for the period 2003-2004 to 2007-2008, by way of raising a Show Cause Notice on 3-6-2008 that is by invoking the longer period of limitation. 3. As per the facts on record, the appellants are manufacturing some of the parts of the weigh bridge, which are being cleared by them on payment of duty. The other parts of the weigh bridge are either being procured by them from the other manufacturer or are being imported. All the parts of the weigh bridge are being cleared by them under one invoice and/or otherwise and taken to site for assembling, erection of the same and commissioning of the same in terms of the orders placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of limitation, by submitting that various proceedings at various Commissionerates were going on against them and as such the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue. 7. Countering the above arguments, ld. DR for the Revenue draws our attention to the findings of the original adjudicating authority and submits that inasmuch as the bought out and imported parts of the weigh bridge were brought to the appellant's factory and all the requisite parts and components were cleared under the cover of one invoice, the department has rightly considered the same as clearance of one complete weigh bridge. He submits that the facts in the earlier cases were different inasmuch as the parts and components were not being cleared in one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the assessee and has set aside the order passed by the original adjudicating authority. 9. The appellants have placed on record a letter from the Revenue, obtained by them in terms of provisions of RTI Act, 2005. In terms of the said letter, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e. Order-in-Appeal Nos. 196 & 197/CE/D-II/2011, dated 18-4-2011 stands accepted by the Committee of Commissioner and no appeal stand filed against before the Tribunal. In view of the above development, we are of the view that the appellant has a strong prima facie case in its favour so as to allow both stay petitions unconditionally. We order accordingly. 10. The Misc. application stands filed by the applicant seeking release of the seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
