9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing the returns. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- As the search was conducted in the factory premises of the appellant on 28/03/2006 and goods were also seized on 28/03/2006 that the show cause notice was only issued on 16/03/2007. Thereafter, the show cause notice is highly barred by limitation as no malafide is attributable to the appellants - demand barred by limitation. Confiscation - redemption fine - Held that:- The goods in question which have been seized, have not cleared from the factory and there is no malafide attributable against the appellants, therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation, consequently, no redemption fine is imposable on account of seizure of the goods. Appeal allowed - decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as ayurvedic medicine classifying under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act and discharged duty under Section 4 of the Act. The case of Revenue is that the said goods are classifiable under cosmetic and it was classified under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Therefore, the goods found in stock were seized vide the seizure memo dated 18/07/2006. For the seizure, a show cause notice was issued to M/s Surya on 16/03/2007, later on, a show cause notice dated 22/07/2010 were issued to the appellants, invoking extended period of limitation to demand duty of ₹ 82,10,103/- by classifying the goods under Chapter 33 of Central Excise Tariff Act as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. As the goods which qualifying Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of assessing the returns. As the search was conducted in the factory premises of the appellant on 28/03/2006 and goods were also seized on 28/03/2006 that the show cause notice was only issued on 16/03/2007. Thereafter, the show cause notice is highly barred by limitation as no malafide is attributable to the appellants. In that circumstances, we hold that all the demands are barred by limitation. Consequently, the demand of duty is not sustainable. In result, the penalties are set aside. 7. We, further take note of the fact that goods in question which have been seized, have not cleared from the factory and there is no malafide attributable against the appellants, therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation, consequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
