9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Nashik. 2. The matter has a very chequered history. Mr. Prakash Shah appearing in support of this Appeal submits that the Tribunal's findings, even though they are on the point of extended period of limitation, raise a substantial question of law. He would submit and relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 2003 (158) ELT 403 that a finding on the question of limitation touches the jurisdiction of the authorities. There, the finding is that the period available under section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could have been invoked. That was because the Appellant is guilty of suppre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of beams, channels, angles and similar other scrap was used for manufacture of goods. The classification list was approved as claimed. 5. However, after the said classification lists were submitted, various audits were claimed to have been conducted by the officers of the Collectorate, Pune and Aurangabad, Central Excise Revenue Audit. The Appellant has set out details of such audits. However, the preventive officers from the Headquarter visited the factory premises, held investigation and then the competent authority proceeded to issue a show cause notice on the allegation that the Appellant manufactured goods out of non duty paid ship breaking scrap and non duty paid M. S. heavy rounds procured from various ship breakers and traders and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and once again on 18th September, 2003, the matter was remanded for fresh decision, as the Tribunal noted that there was a violation of principles of natural justice. On 22nd June, 2004 and this time on the final occasion, it was held that the demand was within the extended period of limitation. Thus, this is a finding of fact, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. 10. True it is that there is a question of limitation and which could be said to be mixed question of fact and law. Further, true it is that if this extended period could not have been invoked by the Revenue, the demand was not tenable. However, we are not impressed by Mr. Shah's argument that there was a finding and which was in favour of the Assessee at any time. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue was only on limitation and given the situation where this Assessee had availed of a benefit of a Notification, but wrongly and by relying on the fact that the inputs which were non duty paid have been used in the manufacture of final products which carried Nil rate of duty. Thus, the evidence was produced to show that the inputs had not suffered any duty. Consequently, the benefit of the Notification is not available to the Assessee. In these circumstances that reliance was placed on the audit inspection and to urge that the demand was time barred. It is unfortunate that this technical defence has resulted in repeated remands and the Revenue and its officers being engaged endlessly by the Tribunal and their superiors in consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
