9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 (3) TMI 628 - SUPREME COURT] that when the full facts are known to the department, extended period cannot be invoked. The benefit of the concession for the broken period of 2 June 1998 to 21 September 1998 cannot be denied in view of the decision of the Tribunal in BHARAT TEXTILES PROOFING INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI [ 2010 (3) TMI 613 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] as well as M/S. SAM TURBO INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS CCE, COIMBATORE [ 2011 (4) TMI 158 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] on identical facts involving the same concession notification as involved in the appeal herein. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - EXCISE APPEAL Nos. E/220, 290/2010, E/449/2008, CO-65/2010 - ORDER NO. FO/77015-77017/2018 - Dated:- 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said Certificates. Proceedings were initiated against the assessee, for wrongful availment of the benefit of the concessional duty, by invoking the extended period of limitation, on the purported ground that CI Pipes could not be construed as part of the Fly Ash Handling System for the period July 1996 to December 1999 involving the following four Show-cause Notices: Sl No. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (SCN) NO. SCN DATE PERIOD AMOUNT ORDER IN ORIGINAL (OIO) ORDER IN APPEAL(OIA) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23-Dec-09 Against the Assessee Notices Nos. 1 and 2 as above were adjudicated against the assessee by separate adjudication Orders but the Appeals against these Adjudication Orders were allowed by the Appellate Commissioner on merits as well as limitation by the twin Orders against which the department is now in Appeal before us bearing Excise Appeal Nos. 290/2010-EX and E-449/2008. On the other hand, Notice Nos. 3 and 4 were adjudicated in favour of the assessee but were reversed by the Appellate Commissioner on the purported ground that during the relevant period parts of fly ash handling system was not specifically covered by Notification No. 5/98-CE dated 2 June 1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory reported in 2006 (197) ELT 465 that the second and subsequent Show-cause Notice on the self-same issue cannot be issued invoking extended period of limitation.Besides the point of limitation, the assessee in his appeal has also argued that although exemption notification No.5 / 98 CE dated 02-06-1998, promulgated in rescission of several erstwhile exemption notifications did not include the parts of the respective goods which were exempt under erstwhile Notification No. 78 / 90 CE dated 20-03-90 (as amended by 57/95-CE dated 16.03.95), yet entry (29) parts of the goods specified in this list in List 8 was inserted subsequently by Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
