9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period i.e. from 16th July 2007 to March 2009, they failed to discharge duty of Rs. 25,26,185/- for the period April 2009 to June 2009 of Rs. 4,35,641/- consequently show cause notices were issued to them on 24.10.2010 and 7.4.2010 for recovery of the said duty with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, Learned Advocate Ms. Sneha Phene submitted that during the period from February 2003 to March 2004 they were issued with show cause notices demanding duty on the PC Pole manufactured in the factories owned by the State Government which they claimed fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 74/93-CE dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal. The department was free to issue demand notices for recovery of the duty in the event they disagreed with the order of this Tribunal. Therefore the demand invoking extended period is not sustainable. 4. Learned A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the finding of the Ld. Commissioner. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The issues involved in the present appeal is (i) whether the appellant are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 74/1993-CE dt. 28.2.1993; and (ii) the demand is barred by limitation. As far as the issue relating to eligibility of benefit of notification is concerned the issue is no more res integara and covered by the judgment of Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case Assistant Engineers (Civil) Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 decided the issue in their favour. They discontinued discharging duty on clearance of PC Pole w.e.f. 15.7.2007 after intimation to the department through their letter dt. 7.7.2007. It is their argument that even though they informed the department about non-payment of duty by availing exemption Notification No. 74/93-CE dt. 28.2.1993 w.e.f. 15.7.2007 pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, no demand notice were issued to them. Therefore alleging suppression of fact and invoking extended period of limitation after the Larger Bench judgment, is bad in law. 8. We find force in the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant. The eligibility of Notification No. 74/93-CE dt. 28.2.1993 has been finally settled by the Larger Bench in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
