9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Technical) Shri B.L. Narshimhan & Shri Utkarsh Malviya, Advocates for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Additional Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The above stated two appeals are up taken together for decision since both of them are arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 18/Commr/Noida-I/2015-16 dated 18/08/2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling exemption under the said Sl.No.71B of the said notification. It appeared to revenue that LED lamps were not covered by the said notification and therefore, appellants were not eligible for said exemption. Appellants were, therefore, issued with a show cause notice dated 07.08.2014 demanding differential Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,31,85,249/- for the period from June, 2011 to March, 2012. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the said concessional rate of duty. He has further submitted that the said Notification No.06/2006-CE was superseded by Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and the earlier exemption continued at Sl.No.331 through Notification No.12/2012-CE. The description against Sl.No.331 was "LED lights or fixtures including LED lamps falling under Chapter No.85 or 94". He has further submitted that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the learned A.R. who has supported the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, we find that the basis for issue of show cause notice was scrutiny of ER-1 returns. Therefore, we find that there was no evidence for revenue to alleged suppression. Therefore, revenue did not have extended period for raising the demand. We, therefore, hold that the deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
