9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a common Order-in-Original No. 48/2003- 04 (RP) (Denovo) dated 27-1-2004. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants holding that the activity of fabrication of various structures like columns, Crane, Griders, Trusses, Roof Griders, Purlins, Bracings, etc. amounts to manufacture and in view of this contention the demands were confirmed. However penalty has not been imposed. Therefore the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment had issued show cause notice and the matter had been adjudicated. Therefore in terms of the Apex Court judgment in case of Nizam Sugar Factory [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.), the demands are barred by time as they were adjudicated and the facts were know to the Department. Further he submits that on merits, the Tribunal's Larger Bench in case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. C.C.E, Aurangabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground of time bar. 3. The learned DR defends the order and submits that in large of number of judgments it has been clearly held that the activity carried out by the assessee would be dutiable. As regards the invocation of larger period, he submits that all the facts were not known to the Department but subsequent proceedings were initiated. He distinguishes the judgment of the Apex Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra). However, the facts of the case clearly shows that the Department were well aware of the proceedings; that the manufacture of the goods; that earlier proceedings and resulting in orders being assessee's favour; that large number of judgments in the assessee's favour. There fore the demands in respect of the appeals of E/2108/2004 and E/2313/2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
