9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was scrutiny of ER-1 returns - there was no evidence for revenue to alleged suppression. Therefore, revenue did not have extended period for raising the demand - the demand is hit by bar of limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos. E/70092 & 70093/2015-EX[DB] - A/72113-72114/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 25-7-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2006 as amended. They were also filing ER-1 returns regularly. On the basis of scrutiny of ER-1 returns filed by the appellant for the months of April, 2011 to March, 2012. It was observed by revenue that during April, 2011 to May, 2011 appellants cleared LED lights and fittings and during the period from June, 2011 to March, 2012 appellants cleared LED lamps both classifiable under Tariff Ite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the contention, Original authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty. Further, the Original Authority imposed personal penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs on the other appellant. Aggrieved by the said order both the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant, he has submitted that the appellants were regularly filing monthly ER-1 return in which it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the same commodities. He further argued that the show cause notice was issued by invoking the provisions for extended period and the same was issued on 07.08.2014 for the period from June, 2011 to March, 2012 and show cause notice very clearly indicates that the show cause notice was based on scrutiny of ER-1 returns. He, therefore, argued that there was no suppression on the part of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
