9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 29.01.2007 is not sustainable, as hit by time limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/715/2008-EX[DB] - A/70467/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 26-4-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Bipin Garg, (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Rajiv Ranjan, (Joint Commissioner) for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.47/Commissioner/NOIDA/2007 dated 18/12/2007 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, NOIDA. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were manufacturer of black and white as well as color television sets falling under chapter sub-heading no.8528.00 of schedule t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid sub heading no.8528.00 and that they were cleared from the factory of the appellant and applicable duty on color television sets should have been paid by the appellant and since they had paid Central Excise Duty on the goods cleared treating them as parts of color television set, there was short payment of Central Excise Duty. Therefore, through the said show cause notice there was demand of Central Excise Duty of ₹ 2,17,11,004.96/- for the period from January 2002 to March 2003. Further, there were other proposal for imposition penalty. The issue was contested by the appellant. The argument put forth by the appellant was that had the goods cleared by them been subjected to duty treating them as color television sets then the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in all the consignments color picture tube was supplied in SKD condition by the appellant. The segregation as to in how many cases the consignments satisfied SKD condition and in how many case the consignments did not satisfy the requirement of definition of SKD condition is absent in the show cause notice. 4. Heard learned DR who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions we find force in all the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. We find that the show cause notice is hit by limitation. Therefore, we hold that said show cause notice dated 29.01.2007 is not sustainable. Therefore, we allowed the appeal. The appellant shall be eligible for consequential reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
