9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty other than the amount mentioned in the demand notice, it is needless to say that the concurrent orders passed by the authorities referred to above are perfectly correct and the same do not require any interference and the substantial questions of law formulated in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are decided in favour of the respondent and therefore the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Decided against Revenue. - C.M.A. (MD) No. 434 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 5-11-2013 - A. Selvam and V.S. Ravi, JJ. Shri R. Aravindan, for the Appellant. Shri S. Renganathan, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the order passed in Appeal No. B/1187/2001 by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether the CESTAT is right in interpreting the word manufacturer as applicable separately for one unit of assessee to another unit when it is clear that the intention as well as the language of the legislation while conceiving the Notification No. 16/97 was for one single entity as a whole? 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended with great vehemence that the respondent has been manufacturing Potassium Chloride and it has two units, one in Tamil Nadu and another in Kerala and the respondent has schemingly suppressed the existence of its unit in Kerala for the purpose of paying duty and under the said circumstances the demand in question has been given and the same has been confirmed in order-in-original, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same shall be applicable also for clearances from any other unit. Appeal does not canvas the case of short levy on any other ground. Therefore, there was no short levy of duty in respect of clearances from the Salvarpatti unit. Moreover, any demand for differential duty from the said unit was barred by limitation as the larger period had been invoked without establishing existence of the circumstances such as suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is sustained and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 7. From the conjoint reading of the orders, which have been challenged in the present Civi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
