9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... galvanization was included in the scope of manufacture . Thereafter the audit carried out scrutiny of the records of the appellant in 2004 and recovered Rs. 24,746/- towards duty and Rs. 2,476/- as interest observing that the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 214/86 has not been observed undertaken in the said process of galvanization for unregistered manufacturers. Further in the audit conducted in November, 2006, the Department itself raised an objection holding the view that the process of galvanization since does not amount to manufacture, therefore service tax is applicable for carrying out the said process on job-work basis - Consequently, an amount of Rs. 9,32,846/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to manufacture in view of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, show-cause notice was issued to them on 01/11/2007 for recovery of the central excise duty amounting to Rs. 49,32,879/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine only) for the period from March 2004 to October 2006 along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was reduced to Rs. 9,00,957/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Nine Hundred and Fifty Seven only) and penalty was imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Six only) for the period from 18/04/2004 to 26/10/2006 and thereafter discharged service tax accordingly. He submits that in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand observing that the process of galvanization being resulted into manufacture , therefore the appellant is required to discharge duty on the said process and directed appropriation of the amount paid as service tax on the process of galvanization carried out on job-work basis. It is his contention that since the Department is aware of the process throughout the period, an audit objection raised from time to time, allegation of suppression of fact invoking extended period of limitation cannot be sustainable. In supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it conducted in November, 2006, the Department itself raised an objection holding the view that the process of galvanization since does not amount to manufacture, therefore service tax is applicable for carrying out the said process on job-work basis. Consequently, an amount of Rs. 9,32,846/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Six only) has been recovered as service tax from the appellant. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the order of the lower authorities holding that the appellant had suppressed the activity of process of galvanization carried out on job-work basis in their factory but not disclosed to the Department. Hence, extended period of limitation cannot be applicable for recovery of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
