9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no justification for invoking longer period of time. The demand for the period from July, 2000 to June, 2001 issued on 09.07.2004 is therefore barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable. When the demand fails to survive, the question of charging interest thereon and imposition of penalty cannot arise. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 478/2007, C.O.-56/07 - ORDER NO : FO/A/75536/2014 - Dated:- 10-9-2014 - DR. D.M.MISRA AND DR. I.P.LAL, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K. Chowdhury, Supdt. (A.R.) For the Respondent : Sri D.K. Saha, Consultant (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per DR. D.M. MISRA; This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.49/KOL-IV/2007 dated-30/03/2007. 2. Briefly stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, the Revenue is in appeal and the respondent-assesse has filed a Cross Objection (CO) challenging the issue classification of the product even though no separate appeal has been filed by them. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri D.K. Saha for the respondent assesse submitted that they do not want to press their cross objection and prayed that they may be allowed to withdraw the same. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has no objection. 7.Consequently, the CO filed by the respondent-assesse is allowed to be withdrawn. 8. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal and also the finding of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. He has submitted that the respondent-assesse had merely declared their product as Ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive Fabrics . Further the appellant filed declaration under Rule 173B, cleared the impugned goods under invoices and submitted monthly returns. Thus, the allegation of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant is baseless. Also it transpires that even the department was not sure about the rate of Cess applicable to the impugned goods. That is why the said clarification was obtained from the office of the Jute Commissioner. Department got the aforesaid clarification in the year 2001. The impugned demand for differential cess duty pertaining to the period from July, 2000 to June, 2001 was issued on 09.07.2004 invoking extended period of terms of the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the said Act. But there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
