Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1188 - CESTAT, MUMBAIPeriod of limitation - benefit of exemption Notification No.108/95-CE denied to the appellants - appellants submits that in the appellants own case for the period January 2001 to February 2001 on identical facts, this Tribunal hold that the demands for the normal period is sustainable and if any period is beyond the normal period of limitation is not sustainable. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invokable against the appellants - Held that:- Where the projects were financed by JBIC (which is not an approved organisation to finance the projects) this Tribunal, in the appellants own case, has held that demands for normal period of limitation are sustainable, no suppression can be invokable therefore extended period of limitation is not invokable. Following the same ratio, in this case also demands within the normal period of limitation are sustainable and no penalty be imposable on the appellants as there is no allegation of fraud, collusion, mis-representation, suppression of facts or contravention of provisions of Act and Rules with intent to evade payment of duties. To calculate the normal period of limitation the period of stay by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh is to be excluded. If this period is excluded some demands confirmed in show-cause notice dated 18.08.2005 are within the normal period of limitation. Therefore, the demands for the normal period are to be re-quantified.
|