9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd M/s. Blue Star Limited are the manufacturers of excisable goods which stand cleared by them to M/s. Goa Shipyard Ltd., M/s. Mazagon Dock Limited and M/s. Garden Reach Shipbuilders Engineers Limited without payment of duty by availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. The said notification grants exemption to various goods if supplied as stores for consumption on board of a vessel of the Indian Navy . 3. On investigation the Revenue found that the goods supplied to various ship builders was for manufacture of new ships and as such the same cannot be considered as stores for consumption on board a vessel and thus the exemption claimed by them in terms of Notification No. 64/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that the demands have been held to be barred in those judgments. 6. In the case of Govardhan Das v. CCE - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 576 (Tri.-Kolkata), while accepting the appellants plea that the demands being time-barred the Tribunal has observed as under : 9. We further note that the appellant has availed the benefit of Notification on the basis of certificate issued by Naval authorities and the said certificate along with purchase order and the other relevant materials were before the Central Excise authorities at the time of assessments of duty. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Goa Paints has held the demand raised beyond the normal period as barred by limitation. By following the ratio of the same, we hold that the demand in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-1995, requires to be accepted. We therefore, set aside the demand for the period from February, 1997 to March, 2000 being the demand of ₹ 99,64,072/-. Penalties imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act are also set aside. 7. In view of the foregoing decisions which deal with the same notification, we find no justification for invocation of longer period against the appellants. As such we hold that the demands raised beyond the normal period of limitation of six months are barred. However, in the case of Uniflex Cables Limited, a period of 2-3 months would come within the limitation period and as such demand has to be quantified by the original adjudicating authority for the said period. Learned Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
