TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the duty demand in this case is, time-barred because longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) is not invocable. The respondent had furnished the necessary information to the department intimating him that they would be clearing goods at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 10/87-C.E. to RDSO against the certificates issued by RDSO. Moreover, supplies of the goods had been made to a Government Institution without payment of duty against a written communication from the Institute. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. - E/595/2005 - A/839/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 17-7-2012 - Ajit Bharihoke and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri Amresh Jaisn, Authorized Representative (DR), for the Appellant. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich do not fall within of the category of goods described in the notification. Learned DR further submits that the impugned order has also ignored the fact that the proper requisite certificate from the purchaser was not furnished by the appellant at the time of clearance of goods and also even if the FRP sleepers are taken to be proto types, the value exceeded far above the limit of Rs. 50,000/- provided in the notification. Thus, learned DR has, thus, strongly urges us to set aside the impugned order and restore the order-in-original. 4. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, on the contrary has contended that FRP sleepers are highly technical items which are used in building of railway tracks and any technical infirmity in those sleepers may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de to a Government Institution without payment of duty against a written communication from the Institute that the goods are fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 10/87-C.E. and the requisite certificates regarding their use for R D purpose had also been issued. In view of this, the department cannot allege fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of fact, etc. on the part of the appellant. We are, therefore, satisfied that the allegation of wilful misstatement, suppression of fact etc. cannot be made against the respondent, and as such, longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) is not invocable. The duty demand in this case is, therefore, time-barred, and there is no infirming in the impugned order. The Revenue s appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
