9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice dated 30.03.2005, we find that the same projects were also involved therein, for whom the appellant had executed the assigned job. Since, the adjudication order passed in confirming the proposed duty demand in the said notice dated 30.03.2005 was set aside by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the department is justified in invoking the extended period of limitation for confirmation of the adjudged demands in the present case. The charges of suppression, wilful misstatement etc., cannot be levelled against the appellant, justifying issuance of show cause notice beyond the normal period provided under Section 11A ibid. The impugned order upholding confirmation of the adjudged demand beyond the normal period of limitation cannot be sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant was appropriated in the said order. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune - II vide the impugned order dated 28.06.2006 has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed on the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the issue with regard to claim of the benefit of Notification Nos. 3/2001 dated 01.03.2001 and 6/2002 dated 01.03.2002 is no more res integra in view of the order no. A/90985/2017 dated 29.11.2017 passed by this Tribunal in appeal no. E/2188/06, in the case of the appellant itself. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the said order has allowed the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. 6. The show cause notice dated 27.06.2005 issued to the appellant in the present case had enclosed the annexure, mentioning the details of projects executed by the appellant. On examination of the earlier show cause notice dated 30.03.2005, we find that the same projects were also involved therein, for whom the appellant had executed the assigned job. Since, the adjudication order passed in confirming the proposed duty demand in the said notice dated 30.03.2005 was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2017, it cannot be said that the department is justified in invoking the extended period of limitation for confirmation of the adjudged demands in the present case. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
