9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER Per: Bench The brief facts of the case are as under:- i) The appellant is a small scale unit and manufacturers of steel fabricated items (M.S.Floor Grills) falling under chapter 73 of CETA 1985. The issue involved in the appeal is denial of exemption under notification 83/1994-CE dt. 11.4.1994. ii) The appellant had cleared the M.S.Grills for Galvanization (applying a protective zinc coa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Commissioner (Appeal) vide an order dated 24.8.2006 upheld the demand. v) Since the SCN and Order had been issued without territorial jurisdiction, CESTAT Chennai set aside the demand vide Final Order No.1139/2006 dt.30.11.2006. vi) Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, II Division, Trichy Commissionerate, issued a show Cause Notice dt. 26.3.2007 for recovery of duty of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and invoking extended period of limitation. He relies upon the ratio of the following case laws:- 1) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE, AP - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) 2) CCE, Vadodhara Vs. Sotex - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. Discernably, proceedings on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en as suppression of facts only to enable issue of second SCN. In the event, the proceedings initiated by the second SCN dated 26.03.2007, which culminated in the impugned order, cannot sustain and will necessarily have to be set aside, which we hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
