TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts was being cleared for some other purpose, in a situation where the other Unit were not of a type, where these materials can be raw materials for them is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant. Therefore, we see a strong prima facie case on time bar issue as argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant also - Stay granted. - E/00525/2011 - MISC. ORDER Nos.42892-42893/2013 - Dated:- 17-12-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri N. Anand, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC(AR) ORDER Per Mathew John: The early hearing application filed by the department for hearing the stay is dismissed as infructuous as the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 2. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred to other factory are not used in further manufacture of excisable goods and, therefore, Rule 8 will not apply and the applicant should have paid duty based on transaction value. Based on such argument a Show Cause Notice was issued and adjudicated resulting in confirmation of demand of Rs.4,92,93,111/- for the period Apr. 07 to Feb. 10. Aggrieved by the order, the application has filed an appeal along with the stay petition. 4. Arguing for the applicant, the learned Counsel points out that on this issue there were contrary judgments of the Tribunal till the matter was decided by the Larger Bench in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T.185 (Tri.-LB). His main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled periodically. So, at the stay stage, he is arguing mainly on the time bar aspect of the demand. He prays that the appeal may be adjudicated after predepositing of the amount of Rs.49,000/- which should be within the time frame. 5. Opposing the prayer, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the legal position as to what is the value to be adopted is explicit from Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and very clearly interpreted by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra). In the matter of time bar, he submits that the applicant had nowhere disclosed that these goods were being used for construction activity in their sister Units and this aspect was suppressed from Revenue. He further submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
