9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant that the Respondent had availed of the benefit in respect of pipe fittings when the benefit of exemption was available only for pipes and not for pipe fittings - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has found that throughout it s returns the Respondent has clearly mentioned the benefit was availed on the pipe fittings and also in the invoices which were on record. We have not been shown any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. Whether the CESTAT is justified in holding that demand cannot be sustained for the extended period of limitation and should be restricted to the normal period of limitation ? b. Whether CESTAT is justified in holding that there is no justification for imposition of penalty when the issue involved is an interpretation of law and there is no suppression of fact, without going into the meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 5,45,34,629/- with interest and imposed penalty of ₹ 4,92,53,719/-. 4. The Respondent filed an Appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai along with an application for stay. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that exemption was admissible only to pipes and not to pipe fittings , however held against the Appellant on the ground that the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the Respondent was not entitled to the benefit of exemption of pipe fittings, he has taken the same which clearly means that there is suppression of facts. 6. The Tribunal has dealt with this submission. The Tribunal has found that throughout it s returns the Respondent has clearly mentioned the benefit was availed on the pipe fittings and also in the invoices which were on record. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
