9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he merchant manufacturers. He also stated that they received job charges for the processing of the grey fabrics. It is categorically stated that they received job charges by cheque from the various merchant manufacturers. It is seen that in 2005, the Central Excise Officers found that the suppliers of the Grey fabrics were not in existence. We find that the Dy Commissioner, C&CE Div IV, Surat by his letter dtd 4.12.2008 in response to query under RTI application had forwarded to copy of the CE Registration Certificate of the suppliers. Thus, it is clearly evident that the suppliers were in existence during the material period. Following the decision the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - appeal allowed - decided against Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me issue was considered by Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the identical case of M/s Vrindavan Dyeing Mills (P) Ltd vide order No. A/11012-11013/2015 dated 30.06.2015 and held as follows:- 4. On perusal of the statement of Shri Shyam Sunder Dhanawat, Director of the Appellant Company, we find that he has stated that the goods were supplied by various merchant manufacturers for processing, on job charge basis and the goods were supplied to them accompanied with Central Excise invoice. They processed the goods and which were taken by the merchant manufacturers. He also stated that they received job charges for the processing of the grey fabrics. It is categorically stated that they received job charges by cheque from the various merch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions of the Supreme Court : (i) CCE v. Chemphar Drugs Liniments, reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276. (ii) Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195. (iii) Lubrichem Industries Limited v. CCE, Bombay, reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 257. (iv) Nesle (India) Limited v. CCE, Chandigarh, reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 577. 13. We thus find substance in the contention of Mr. Parikh that in the case before us, in the absence of any allegation that the appellants were parties to the fraud, the larger period of limitation cannot be applied, and thus, even if the original document was assumed to be issued by practising fraud, the appellants being holders in due course for valuable con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
