2018 (5) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n persuasion. In that circumstances, the period of limitation starts from 30/04/2009. Admittedly, within one year of the said date of 30/04/2009, no SCN has been issued. Extended period of limitation is not invocable for the period 06/06/2007 to 29/04/2009 - the impugned order qua denying the exemption under N/N. 49-50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 is set aside - appeal allowed.
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri.B.K. Singh, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri.Atul Handa, DR for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein the benefit of exemption Notification No.49-50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 was denied for the period 06/06/2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m 06/06/2007. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invocable and the show-cause notice is barred by limitation. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that it is the fact on record while opting for exemption on 06/06/2007 the appellant did not intimate to the department, the fact that they are availing the exemption. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is rightly invocable. It is his submission that although they have filed declaration on 30/04/2009 from the said date they have given exemption, as the appellant did not intimate to the department through proper declaration in terms of Notification No.49-50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003. Therefore, the extended period of limitation i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... limitation is invocable. But in this case the facts of availment of exemption was made known by the appellants themselves to the revenue. Therefore, there is a thin difference between the case of Mehta & Co. (supra) and the case in hand. In these circumstances, the facts are distinguishable. The decision in the case of Mehta & Co. is not applicable to the facts of the case. 9. In view of the above analysis, we hold that extended period of limitation is not invocable for the period 06/06/2007 to 29/04/2009. Therefore, the impugned order qua denying the exemption under Notification No.49-50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 is set aside. In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and Operative part pronounced in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X