9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat during the period 01/04/2002 to 31/03/2005, appellants manufactured aluminium doors, windows, frames and cement blocks valued at Rs. 44,66,23,502/-. After extending the SSI benefit, the total duty payable on all the items worked out to Rs. 26,82,657/-. But the appellant paid duty only on cement blocks amounting to Rs. 2,82,316/- (after availing SSI benefit under Notification No.8/2003-CE dt. 01/03/2003 as amended), and no duty was paid towards aluminium doors, windows and frames. Hence a show-cause notice was issued demanding the aforesaid amount along with interest and penalties and to appropriate the amount already paid and demanding. The showcause notice was adjudicated vide the Order-in-Original No.67/2008 dt. 22/24-07-2008 by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assesses by various decisions. Subsequently, the matter was referred to Larger Bench in the light of the conflicting decisions and the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE [2005(190) ELT 301 (Tri. LB)] held that structures in their movable state will be subject to duty, notwithstanding their getting permanently fixed as structure. It is his further submission that there being favourable decisions prevailing during the impugned period and the subsequent conflicting decisions resulting in the issue being referred to Larger Bench, the action of the appellant is bona fide and extended period is not invocable. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Blue Star Ltd. Vs. UOI [2015(322) ELT 820 (SC)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the decision in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. which subsequently held that the structure in the movable state will be subject to duty. Further we find that in the decisions relied upon by the appellant, it has been held that when there are conflicting decisions, the appellant has a bona fide belief and no suppression can be alleged against the appellant and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in such a situation. Further we find that the facts were within the knowledge of the Department in 2005 itself but showcause notice was issued on 24/01/2008. Therefore we are of the considered view that the entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation. Learned counsel has also submitted that on merits also, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
