Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 345 - CESTAT BANGALOREEligibility for the Exemption Notification - Revenue was of the view that what was being manufactured by the appellant was not sub-assembly of scanners but in reality was Ultra-Sound Scanner system – Held that:- Software CD cannot be considered as a part in the present technological regime - the scanner can be said to consist of only two main parts as received in the hands i.e. scanner assembly and the probe - the scanner has to be considered as the main item and the 'probe', a part of the scanner and a necessary part - the appellant/assessee has not been able to make out a case and what is cleared by them is not a part of scanner and thus is not eligible for the benefit of exemption notification – Decided against Assessee. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation – Held that:- It is a settled principle that merely because an assesee chooses an interpretation beneficial to him, there can be an allegation of suppression or misdeclaration - Appellant cannot be found fault with for coming up with an interpretation and availing the benefit which was not available to them - the order of the Commissioner limiting the demand to the normal period and not imposing the penalty was an order which rendered justice to the appellant/assessee without being unfair to the Revenue – Decided against Revenue.
|