9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable against the appellant - the SCN is not maintainable which has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/54148/2014 - A/61839/2016-EX[DB] - Dated:- 29-12-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Naveen Mullick, Advocate- for the appellant Sh. V. Gupta, AR- for the respondent Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 was denied to the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that they started their unit in the state of Himachal Pradesh and filed declaration that the appellant was availing b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d March, 2010 to October, 2011, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation i.e. on 30.11.2012. Further, he submits that while filing declaration for availing exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE, the appellant has filed the manufacturing process and in the manufacturing process it has been clearly mentioned that during the course of manufacturer of their final product, Red Oxide emerges. In that circumstances, demand is barred by limitation, therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that the appellant has not intimated to the department that intermediate product Red Lead shall come into existence and merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the process of the manufacturing of their final goods and the chart also shows the same. It is clear that through Batron Process Red Oxide emerges. The said declaration were examined and the Range Superintendent held that the appellant is entitled for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 ibid. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has suppressed the fact of manufacturing of Red Oxide from the department. Therefore, the change of suppression of facts is not sustainable against the appellant. Consequently, the show cause notice is not maintainable which has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation. 9. In that circumstances, we hold that the demands confirmed against the appellant are barred by limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
