9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication cannot be extended. Time Limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case initially the appellant had been paying duty at the appropriate rate albeit under protest but stopped making payment w.e.f. 15.7.2007 after the decision of the Tribunal was passed in their favour. From the records, it is not found that any protective demands were issued by the department nor any letter directing the appellant to discharge duty had been issued after 15.7.2007. It cannot be disputed that conflicting views was prevailing on the issue, therefore, it necessitated reference to the Larger Bench - Also, the issue involved is since centres around interpretation of law, hence, invoking of larger period of limitation cannot be sustained. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.2.1993, but the department held the view otherwise. The demand was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise and aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed their appeal. Hence, the department filed an appeal before the CESTAT. By order dt. 16.4.2007 this Tribunal disposed the appeal filed by the department observing that the exemption notification No. 74/93-CE dt. 28.2.1993 is admissible to the appellant. After receiving the said order, the appellant discontinued the payment of duty on the clearance of manufactured PSC Pole from their factory since it belonged to the State Government. It is her contention that the appellant had discontinued payment of duty only after receipt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 2008 (232) ELT 628 (Tri.- LB). Analyzing the principle of law on the subject, it has been held that the Electricity Board is not a department of State Government, consequently, benefit of the said exemption Notification cannot be extended. The Larger Bench of Tribunal observed as follows: 8. As a matter of fact, on the admission of the appellant s representative that the Electricity Board is not a Department of the State Government, the benefit of exemption has to be denied, for, as seen above, the goods not only should be used by Departments of the concerned State Government, it should also be the manufactured in the factory belonging to a State Government. The status of the Electricity B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch in the case cited above. In the present case initially the appellant had been paying duty at the appropriate rate albeit under protest but stopped making payment w.e.f. 15.7.2007 after the decision of the Tribunal was passed in their favour. From the records, we do not find any protective demands were issued by the department nor any letter directing the appellant to discharge duty had been issued after 15.7.2007. It cannot be disputed that conflicting views was prevailing on the issue, therefore, it necessitated reference to the Larger Bench. Also, the issue involved is since centres around interpretation of law, hence, in our opinion invoking of larger period of limitation cannot be sustained. Therefore the demand raised post 15.7.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
