9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very much relevant for deciding the issue, therefore we allow the miscellaneous application. 2. Heard Shri Awdhesh Choudhary, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri H.C. Saini, ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the bulky materials available on record. 3. It is seen that the demand of Rs. 1,71,40,806/- stands confirmed against the appellant for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08, by way of raising a Show Cause Notice on 3.6.08 that is by invoking the longer period of limitation. 4. As per the facts on record, the appellants are manufacturing some of the parts of the weigh bridge, which are being cleared by them on payment of duty. The other parts of the weigh bridge are either being procured by them from the other manufacturer or are being i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, it is the prayer of the appellant that inasmuch as the issue stands decided in their own case, the impugned order is set-aside. The demand is also assailed on the point of limitation, by submitting that various proceedings at various Commissionerates were going on against them and as such the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue. 8. Countering the above arguments, ld. DR for the Revenue draws our attention to the findings of the original adjudicating authority and submits that inasmuch as the bought out and imported parts of the weigh bridge were brought to the appellant's factory and all the requisite parts and components were cleared under the cover of one invoice, the department has rightly considered the same as cleara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Mills Limited vs. CCE - 1998 (97) ELT 3. After taking into consideration the activities of the appellants as also the legal position, he has concluded in favour of the assessee and has set aside the order passed by the original adjudicating authority. 10. We find that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18.04.2011 has been accepted by the department. Moreover, the appellants are paying duty on the parts cleared by them and are doing erection and commissioning at the site of the buyer. Therefore, we hold that appellants are not liable to pay duty on complete weigh bridge. Further, we find that the issue whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on complete weigh bridge or parts thereof was in dispute and it was held in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
