9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged against the appellant. Also, the department itself accepted in the year 1997 that product ‘Carved Marble Product’ is classifiable under Chapter heading 2504.90. The facts regarding the claim of classification under 2504.90 and exemption there on was well within the knowledge of the department, therefore, nothing prevented the department from issuing the SCN within the normal period which department failed to do so - the appellant had neither any malafide intention nor they have suppressed any fact from the department. Accordingly, the SCN issued after almost six years of the period for which demand pertains is clearly time barred. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/288-289/2010-DB - Final Order N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er contest. Being aggrieved by the order-in-appeal dated 13.11.2009 appellant filed the present appeals. 2. Sh. P.P. Jadeja, Ld. Consultant appeared on behalf of the appellants made a preliminary submission that in respect of demand for the period 01.02.2002 to 28.02.2005 SCN was issued on 18.09.2007 which is clearly time barred as there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. He submits that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of the marble products since 1993. The carved marble and stone products were manufactured on their own account as well as on job work basis. They started paying duty of excise on carved marble products from 01.03.2005 as after that date, the same products were classifiable under CETH 6807. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 577 3. Sh. L. Patra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. On going through the facts and issue involved, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of on the ground of time bar itself. We find that the issue involved is classification of carved marble articles that whether the said product is classifiable under 2504.90 or 6807 during the period 01.02.2002 to 28.02.2005. From the proceeding it is clear that the issue was highly debatable as the adjudicating authority by analyzing the tariff entries given a detail finding and dropped the classification c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing prevented the department from issuing the SCN within the normal period which department failed to do so. The appellant subsequently got this entry amended under registration certificate as they started paying excise duty from 01.03.2005. In view of these facts, it is clear that the appellant had neither any malafide intention nor they have suppressed any fact from the department. Accordingly, the SCN issued after almost six years of the period for which demand pertains is clearly time barred. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation only without going into the merit of the case. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2018) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
