Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (5) TMI 402 - CESTAT, BANGALOREDemand- Limitation- Appeal is filed by the appellant M/s. Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd. (herein after referred to as appellant No. 1) and Appeal No. 251/2008 is filed by M/s. Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. (herein after referred to as appellant No. 2). The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellant No. (1) herein is a manufacturer of aluminium extrusions, also known as profiles, and are registered with the Central Excise authorities. Appellant No. (1) apart from manufacture such profiles on their own account, also undertakes to manufacture such profiles/extrusions on job work basis. Appellant No. (2) herein is a manufacturer of water filters/purifiers and parts thereof, and has manufacturing unit all over India. Appellant No. (2) was procuring aluminium ingots on payment of duty and after availing Cenvat credit was sending the same to appellant No. (1) for job-work, manufacture of aluminum extrusions. For the said activity appellant No. (1) was paid agreed conversion charges. The raw materials/inputs were sent to appellant No. (1) by following the procedures provided under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. On the basis of the investigations conducted, it was noticed by the lower authorities that appellant No. (1) was evading the Central Excise duty, hence the show cause notice was issued to appellant No. (1) and (2). The appellants submit that when they have disclosed the relevant facts to the department at the appropriate time, longer period of limitation cannot be invoked under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Held that- We find that the question of limitation will also need to be considered in this case. The Adjudicating Authority has decided the issue of limitation only on the ground that the appellant No. (1) has not informed the Revenue Authorities as regards the manufacturing and clearing of the goods from the factory premises in their returns. It is also held that the appellant No. (1) has not made true declarations and also given the false declaration.
|