9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Per: Ashok Jindal 1. The Revenue has filed these appeals against the respondents M/s.Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., for confirmation of demand of extended period of limitation along with confiscation and penalty and against the second respondent M/s.Mazgaon Dock Ltd., for penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents viz., Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July 2001 was issued to the respondent M/s.Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., for proposing demand of duty along with fine and penalties and against the respondent M/s.Mazgaon Dock Ltd., for imposition of penalty. 3.The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands as proposed by show-cause notice and imposed a penalty on both the respondents. He also confiscated land, building, plant & ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 is available for the goods used on board of a vessel of Indian Navy and in this case these goods have used in the manufacturing of ships and from the declaration filed claiming the exemption does not show the use of this furniture, the said fact has been suppressed by the respondent from the department. Therefore, extended period is invocable and the impugned order is to be set aside by co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med the exemption. The allegation of suppression is not sustainable when the respondent has availed the exemption on the basis of certificate issued by the Indian Navy. 7. In view of the above observation, the extended period of limitation is not invocable as held by the lower appellate authority. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
