9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on job work basis and confirmed the demand in respect of yarn manufactured by the appellants on their own account and sold to KGDL. The veracity of these documents need to be verified along with the original records available with the department so as to arrive at a conclusion whether there is any suppression of facts or extended period can be invoked in this case for demanding duty or whether there is wilful suppression of facts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the original authority should verify the original documents, including letters as indicated above, and also to take into consideration the directions of the Hon'ble High Court by its order dt. 8.4.2014 and examine the issue in the light of the above directions and pass fresh orders on the duty confirmed by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11 AC of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order in so far as that portion of order confirming the duty demand and imposition of penalty on the appellants No.1 & 2 as well as on Shri M. Thiagarajan, Managing Director of PML (Appellant No.3). - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. E/162/2008, E/163/2008, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing extended period and for levy of interest and also for imposition of penalty. 4. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai adjudicated and passed a common adjudication by Order-in-Original No. 1-2/2008-CE dt. 14.1.2008 which is challenged in the present appeals and confirmed the demand of ₹ 79,72,224/- in respect of 1st SCN No.06/2006 along with interest and also imposed equal penalty on PML and imposed a penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs on Shri M. Thiagarajan, M.D. The adjudicating authority also confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 33,04,023/- in respect of 2nd SCN No.23/2006 on PTML along with interest and equal penalty. The adjudicating authority has dropped proceedings for recovery of duty of ₹ 17,50,354/- raised against PML and ₹ 1,08,356/- raised against PTML and dropped penal action against Smt. Lakshmi Murugesan, M.D. of PTML. 5. M/s.PML, M/s.PTML and Shri M. Thiagarajan, M.D of PML filed appeals before this Tribunal. This Bench of the Tribunal vide common Final Order No.861, 862, 863/2009 dt. 23.7.2009, after hearing both sides upheld the duty demands and penalty in respect of all the appellants and upheld the adjudication order and dismissed their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that these documents were placed before the adjudicating authority whereas the adjudicating without considering the documents confirmed the demand by invoking the extended period. He further submits that the department has accepted the availment of deemed credit by M/s.KGDL in the above referred letter and confirmed that they are only job worker and if at all any liability to be fastened, it should be demanded from M/s.KGDL . He also submits that M/s.KGDL have duly discharged the duty on the goods cleared to domestic market or for export without payment of duty. He therefore submits that there is no suppression of facts or there is any intent to evade payment of duty, as the department was kept informed from time to time all their activities and the department has duly accepted the letters and issued a confirmed letter. He relied on the following case laws :- 1. Padmini Products Vs CCE 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC) 2. Apex Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI 1992 (61) ELT 413 (Guj.) 3. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi 2002 (147) ELT 881 (Tri.-Del.) 4. Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 2002 (149) ELT 1426 (Tri.-Del.) 5. Shahnaz Ayurve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33) ELT 749 (Tri.-Mumbai) (4) Mukand Ltd. Vs CCE Belapur 2007 (218) ELT 120 (Tri.-Mumbai) (5) Mathania Fabrics Vs CCE Jaipur 2008 (221) ELT 481 (SC) (6) CCE Ahmedabad Vs M. Square Chemicals 2008 (231) ELT 194 (SC) (7) Union Quality Plastic Ltd. Others Vs CCE Vapi 9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and examined the documents submitted by both sides including the directions of the Hon'ble High Court vide order dt.8.5.2014. The Hon'ble High Court has set aside the Tribunal's final order dt. 23.07.2009 and remanded the issue for fresh disposal. For proper appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the Hon'ble High Court's order dt. 8.4.2014 is reproduced below:- 7. Though the learned counsel for the appellants raised several grounds, there is one ground, which appears prima facie to deserve consideration. For sustaining the demand, the department relies upon the extended period of limitation. If extended period of limitation is to be invoked, a case of suppression ought to be made out. According to the appellants, there were documents to show that the appellants were not guilty of suppression and that the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oor Division, Mettuplayam, with a copy marked to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Madurai as well as letter dt.13.7.2002 of KGDL. As seen from the letter dt. 23.5.2002, wherein it is clearly indicated by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tirumangalam that the appellants were manufacturing grey denim fabrics out of non-duty paid yarn procured by the appellants for exports under Annexure 45. The documents submitted by the appellants are only photocopies of the communications relating to the period 2001 to 2002. Various correspondences between the Range Superintendent and the appellant and M/s.KGDL to the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coonoor Division are issued on various dates under different pretext either for availing deemed credit or for further processing or of following procedure of job work. These documents were also submitted before the original authority during the adjudication proceedings. The veracity of these documents need to be verified along with the original records available with the department so as to arrive at a conclusion whether there is any suppression of facts or extended period can be invoked in this case for demanding duty or whether there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
