9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Machines Craft Pvt. Ltd; and the perusal of both the invoices shows that the appellant got the die of cylinder heads only and not the die of brake shoe as alleged by the Department. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant was subjected to regular audit in the year 2010 also and no such objection was ever raised by the Revenue. It is also found that the Revenue has not been able to bring on record any fact which shows that the appellant has suppressed the material facts to justify the invocation of extended period to confirm the demand. It is also found that the appellant has conceded the demand for the normal period on account of cylinder heads only which he is liable to pay. The appellant is liable to pay the duty on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost of dies used for manufacture of cylinder head and Break Shoe. Thereafter, the appellant paid up Rs.85124/- vide PLA E.No. 006 dated 04.10.11. The said dies had been returned to the above said suppliers under Invoice No. 2800 dated 25.03.2010 to M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd., and Invoice No. 2066 dated 15.10.10 respectively. The die from M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd., had remained with the appellant from 21.08.08 to 25.03.2010 even though it was returned in between and again received. No die was received before 21.08.08 but the Deptt., had demanded duty on clearance made during 2007-08 and 2008-09 even though Audit had been done and facts were known to the Deptt. Demand could not be raised beyond one year. Similarly no dies was received for manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice which pertains to the period 2007-2008 and 2008- 2009 which is totally time barred, because the revenue has already conducted the detailed audit of the appellant under EA-2000 on dated 20 August, 23 August,25 August, 27 August and 3rd of September of 2010 by the audit group 3 Delhi-IV central excise and the copy of audit report has also been enclosed with the appeal paperbook. 4.2 He further submits that invoking the extended period on the ground of suppression of fact is not justified because the appellant has not suppressed any material facts and the audit conducted earlier by the Department did not raise any such objection. 5. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
