TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment is that even though the assesses has fairly conceded that it has received job work from M/s. Raghavendra Spinners Limited, Tirunelveli it failed to intimate either brand name or trade name. In order to answer befittingly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision referred to earlier, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that failure to mention classification as supplied by assessee does not come within the purview of suppression of facts. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant/assessee in respect of job work done by it during the relevant period mentioned in the show cause notice. The claim in question has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the stipulated period. The demand made in the form of show cause notice, dated 3-8-1998 has been upheld in Order-in-Original No. 16 of 1999, dated 30-8-1999 by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai and the same has been challenged before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli, wherein the demand made by the Department as well as order passed in order-in-original No. 16 of 1999 have been set aside. Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli, Appeal No. E/172/2002 has been filed by the Department before the CESTAT. 3. The CESTAT, after considering the rival contentions putforth on either side, has allowed Appeal No. E/172/2002 and thereby set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, period of limitation of six months is not applicable and the proper period of limitation is five years and therefore, the final order passed by the CESTAT perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference. 7. From the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to analyse as to whether the assessee has made wilful suppression of the details of goods produced under the guise of job work. 8. It is an admitted fact that on 17-1-1997 itself, the assessee has duly intimated the fact that it has been doing job work received from M/s. Raghavendra Spinner Limited, Tirunelveli and its main process is to convert the materials supplied to it into cotton yarn. 9. It is a static principle of law that as per Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name. In order to answer befittingly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision referred to earlier, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that failure to mention classification as supplied by assessee does not come within the purview of suppression of facts. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant/assessee in respect of job work done by it during the relevant period mentioned in the show cause notice. 13. The CESTAT has rejected the claim of the assessee mainly on the ground that the assessee has made suppression of facts. In view of the aforesaid elucidation of factual aspects coupled with the dictum given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
