9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e about such procurement as well as the exit of the appellant from EOU scheme. Therefore, the show cause notice issued invoking extended period alleging suppression of facts cannot sustain. The appellant has made out good case on limitation - demand is time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/749/2010 - Final Order No. 40492 / 2018 - Dated:- 26-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. Sushma Harini, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. During the period prior to 4.3.2005, they cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings. The department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 1,09,109/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. Sushma Harini appeared and argued the matter. The appellant had obtained no objection for exit from EOU on 4.3.2005 and thereafter final exit order was issued by the Development Commissioner on 17.5.2005. Therefore, the department was aware of the debonding. The appellant had submitted the entire details on which the appellant is liable to pay duty and had discharged duty liability accordingly. When the audit objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant ought to have paid duty at depreciated value taking them as capital goods. The appellant has withheld the facts with regard to the liability to discharge duty on capital goods with intent to evade payment of duty and therefore the invocation of extended period is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The ld. counsel has vehemently argued on the ground of limitation. On perusal of records, we find that the department has issued a letter dated 21.6.2007 requiring the appellant to pay duty on the impugned items like HDPE card cans, PP simplex bobbins and tubes etc. on the scrap value of such goods. When the department has requested the appellant to discharge duty on scrap value, later the department has changed their stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
