9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uently the penalty imposed on the appellant is also set aside - appeal allowed in part. - E/1127/2007-DB - A/12587/2017 - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. S. Vyas ( Advocate ) For the Respondent : Mr. Sameer Chitkara ( A.R. ) ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal against order in original No. 03/demand /Commr-I/07 dated 19.07.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Coal and material handling plants. They were issued with 11 SCNs alleging non-payment of duty on 'left out material' and als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that there was no suppression of fact in relation to alleged non-payment of duty on left out materials. It is his contention that during the relevant period they were clearing coal and material handling plants and duty was paid on the entire machinery at the time of raising the first GP-1 for the main machine, whereas subsequent components of the machine were cleared in piecemeal without payment of duty, against respective GP-1 s specifically making a mention of the amount of duty paid earlier against the first GP-1 at the time of clearing the first machine. It is his contention that all Gate Passes were invariably filed with RT-12 returns indicating the said clearances and payment of duty or otherwise from time to time during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods has been wrongly confirmed invoking extended period of limitation. The first demand was issued on 03.12.1993 for extended period of limitation, therefore, the second demand issued on 29.03.1994 also invoking extended period, is contrary to the principle of law laid down in Nizam Sugar's case (supra). We find that there is no dispute that 11 Show Cause Notice's were issued from time to time on the aforesaid two issues and culminated to passing the impugned order by the adjudicating authority. The grievance of the appellant is that even though on one of the issue, the Ld. Commissioner has dropped the demand observing no suppression of fact whereas on the second issue raised in the same Show Cause Notice, the demand has been conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
