TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst appellate authority. It also appears to us that the supplier of the goods, M/s. D.S. Enterprises, is a trading unit and not a manufacturing unit and the conditions stipulated under Notifications 83/94 and 84/94 are of a nature which can be satisfied by a manufacturer. Since the plea for the benefit of the two notifications has been raised for the first time, it would be proper to remand the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the paper sent by M/s. D.S. Enterprises into paper reels, cores and tubes. No duty was being paid by the appellants as it was assumed that the said activity is covered under Notification 214/86. In the impugned order, the first appellate authority found that the appellants were not eligible for the benefit of Notification 214/86 as the supplier of the goods was not paying any duty. However, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel was that since the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty under Section 11AC, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and on this ground also, the demand has to be dropped. 4. The learned AR's main contention was that the benefit under the two said Notifications was not claimed by them either before the original authority or before the first appellate authority and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be really eligible to get the benefit of Notifications 83/94 or 84/94. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also raised the issue of extended period. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act on the grounds that the appellants could have been eligible for modvat credit and, therefore, the duty liability would come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
