9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings initiated were barred by limitation of time. HELD THAT:- The issue, as to whether, the activity of corrugation amounts to manufacture or not was highly contentious and there were divergent views by different judicial forums and finally the issue gets settled by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court, in the case of Hansa Metallics Ltd. Vs. Union of India, [ 2001 (2) TMI 138 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ], holding that process of corrugation of plain metallic sheets and galvanized sheets undertaken by the petitioner amounts to manufacture, as a new commercial product having different identity and use come into existence. Even after pronouncement of the said judgment by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Bidhan Chandra, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: S.K. MOHANTY This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service tax, Aurangabad. Pursuant to the appeal filed by Revenue, the respondent has also filed the cross objection. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely, Galvanized Corrugated Sheets , falling under Chapter Sub- Heading No. 72104100 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 21.05.2015, Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the adjudicating authority had not invoked the extended period of limitation for confirmation of the proposed duty demand. It is specifically stated in the grounds of appeal that non-payment of central excise duty on the manufacturing activity undertaken by the respondent was entirely owing to reason of fraud, suppression etc., with intent to defraud the Government Revenue. Thus, it is contended by Revenue that the proviso to Section 11A of the Act has been rightly invoked in the show cause notice, seeking for recovery of the duty amount within the limitation period of 5 years. 4. We have heard Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise at paragraph 23 in the impugned order has held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and the duty demand should be confined only to the normal period provided under Section 11A of the Act. In support of dropping the duty demand proposed for confirmation under the extended period of limitation, the Learned Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory, reported in 2006 (197) ELT 0465 (SC). 6. We note that the issue, as to whether, the activity of corrugation amounts to manufacture or not was highly contentious and there were divergent views by different judicial forums and finally the issue gets settled by the Hon ble Punjab Harya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w product but is only a downstream product of the CR sheets manufactured by the assessee. 7. The law is well settled by the Hon ble Apex Court, in the case of Chamundi Die Cast Vs. CCE, Banglore-2007 (215) ELT 169 (SC), Gopal Zarda Udyog Vs. CCE, New Delhi-2005 (188) ELT 251 (SC), Ugam Chand Bhandari Vs. CCE, Madras-2004 (167) ELT 491 (SC) that when the assessee acted under bonafide belief on a particular aspect and there were difference of opinion in the department on such aspect, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked especially, when the activities of the assessee were in the knowledge of the department officers, who regularly visit its factory. 8. In view of above discussions and analysis, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
