9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant Shri G.M. Sharma, AR for the respondent PER: ASHOK JINDAL This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, the issue was decided against the appellant but the said order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order of this Tribunal and remanded the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The matter was adjudicated and held that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. Therefore, a demand of duty of Rs. 99,707/- was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he clarification issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is his submission that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue in detail and the activity undertaken by the appellant duly covered Chapter note 6 of Section XVII of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He further submits that the appellant has failed to disclose thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding out of the raw material namely blank supplied by Rail Coach Factory and that can be used as part of the Rail Coach Factory. Therefore, on merits, we find that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. 8. We further find that as during the impugned period, there was clarification given by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh to the effect that which is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the appellant. Consequently, we hold that the extended period of is not invokable as the show cause notice was issued in this case on 3.1.2002 by invoking the extended period of limitation for the period 1996-1997. In that circumstance, the show cause notice is barred by limitation. We further find that if the extended period is to be taken into account then also some art of the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
