2018 (8) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se, Salem [2017 (8) TMI 837 - CESTAT CHENNAI], in favor of the assessee. The demand is also barred by limitation having been raised after the normal period. In the absence of any positive evidence to reflect upon any malafide on the part of the assessee, extended period is not available to the Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No.ST/1042/2011-CU[DB] - ST/A/71 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd processing of goods for or on behalf of client was introduced under the said category only w.e.f. the said date. Inasmuch as, the period is prior to 16.06.2005, no tax liability would arise against them. For the above proposition, reliance is placed upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s Hitech Industrial Lining Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem reported as 2018 (8) GS .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X