9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared for the appellant, I have heard the learned DR and have gone through the impugned order and the appeal memorandum. 2. The facts, briefly stated are as under: The appellants are manufacturer-exporters of various types of handicraft/furniture. They engaged service of foreign agents and paid them Rs. 46,67,829/- as commission during the period 01.04.2005 to 31.01.2009. They were issued tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... everse charge mechanism came into effect from 18.04.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A in the Finance Act, 1994 and also deducted Rs. 33,560/from the remaining demand in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2009 as it was covered under the Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2009. 3. The appellants have essentially argued that: (1) When the original adjudicating authority found it fit not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od 01.01.2005 to 31.01.2009. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised in both the Show Cause Notices although as is evident from the period, covered by them, the demand of Rs. 33,560/- raised under Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2009 was included in the demand of Rs. 5,37,464/- raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2009. It is seen that the impugned Order-in-Appeal cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I really fail to understand as to how the appellant can be fastened with any malafide intention so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. 6. In any case, I find that an identical issue stand decided by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. Paramount Communication Ltd. vs CST, Delhi-I [2016-TIOL-1631-CESTAT-DEL] has considered the identical situation and has observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
