9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dropping of the demand against M/s. Interscape - chargeability of Central Excise Duty on furniture items - HELD THAT:- The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI VERSUS LOUIS SHOPPE [ 1995 (3) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] decided this issue in favour of Revenue - thus, for the period until the issue was finally in March 1995 by the Supreme Court in the Louis Shoppe case, no duty can be demanded. He has also accordingly held that Revenue was not justified in invoking the extended period of time limit and hence, no demand can be enforced for the period beyond normal time limit - Since, no demand has survived within the normal time limit, he has dropped the entire demand raised in the Show Cause N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This order was challenged by all persons before the CESTAT in the first round of litigation. The CESTAT vide its Order dated 15/01/2001, remanded the matter to the Commissioner for passing Denovo Order with some directions. The Jurisdictional Commissioner however, did not comply fully with the directions of the CESTAT but reduced the redemption fine imposed on M/s. I.T.C. as well as M/s. ABN Amro Bank. The order was complied with by M/s. I. T.C. as well as ABN Amro Bank who paid the redemption fine and redeemed the furniture. Against the order passed by the Commissioner in 2001, M/s. Interscape filed further appeal and challenged before the Tribunal which was decided by the CESTAT vide the Order dated 25/05/2006 in which it remanded the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this issue in favour of Revenue. In this decision, the Hon ble Supreme Court had laid down a test for deciding whether the furniture items will be eligible for the benefit of exemption as handicraft vide Notification No. 76/86 dated 10/02/1986. It has been recorded by the Commissioner in the impugned order that it was a long standing practice since 1989 when furniture was granted exemption as handicrafts. The position stands reversed only with the case decided by Hon ble Supreme Court. In view of the above, he has taken the view that for the period until the issue was finally in March 1995 by the Supreme Court in the Louis Shoppe case, no duty can be demanded. He has also accordingly held that Revenue was not justified in invoking the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
