TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Bridge & Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs CCE Bhubaneswar (2008 (8) TMI 585 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) clearly held that demand is hit by limitation and extended period cannot be invoked and there is no suppression of facts established by department. - show cause notice involved in the present demand for the period 1994-97 was issued on 6.8.1998 only demanding differential duty for the period March 1994-95 to March 1996-97. There is no suppression of facts by the appellant. By respectfully following the Supreme Court decision (supra), we hold that demand is hit by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/MISC/131/2010, E/MISC/40448/2015 & E/143/2004 - Final Order No.40968/2015 - Dated:- 6-8-2015 - Hon ble Shri R. Periasami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining to limitation raised by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dt.16.3.2000 instead of deciding the case remanded the case to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority in his de novo order dt. 31.3.2003 again confirmed the demand and imposed penalty as it was imposed in the original order dt. 30.11.98. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted a written synopsis and reiterated the same. She submits that the period involved in the present demand is 1994-97. She submits that in their additional grounds, it is pleaded that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Crane Betel Nut Powder Works Vs CCE Tirupathi - 2007 (210) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted to the jurisdictional authorities. She further relied on letter dt. 1.1.96 and series of letters wherein the department was already aware of the deduction. The Superintendent of Central Excise, by letter dt. 15.11.95 (Ref.page 7) sought for clarification from the appellant as to how they arrived at the assessable value after allowing deductions of trade discount, turn over tax etc. In turn appellant replied by their letter dt. 20.11.95 with a worksheet of arriving at the assessable value and amount collected from the buyer. She submits that this fact was clearly known to the department. She also relied on letter dt. 27.11.95 wherein the Superintendent of Central Excise sought for further clarification which is available in page 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation issue that the adjudicating authority considered letter dt. 20.11.95 relied by the appellant. He relied the following case laws :- (1) Naharwar Engg. Works Vs UOI 2002 (143) ELT 34 (SC) (2) CCE Chandigarh Vs Shital International 2010 (259) ELT 165 (SC) (3) Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs CCE Jamshedpur 1999 (106) ELT 476 (T) (4) CCE Aurangabad Vs Tigrania Metal Steel Industries 2001 (132) ELT 103 (5) Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs CCE Delhi 2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC) 5. We have carefully considered the submissions and also perused this Tribunal s remand order dt. 10.9.99. The short issue relates to demand of differential duty. The appellants contended both on merits as well as on limitation as there is no suppression of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and directed them to file Annexure-II. All these letters and correspondences between the appellant and the department clearly establish the fact that the details of deduction was brought to the notice of the department by the appellant. Therefore, we find that it is not a case of deliberate suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. The Range Superintendent was very well aware of the variation between the commercial invoice and the excise invoice. Therefore, the records clearly confirms that demand is hit by limitation. The adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority in spite of the direction issued by Tribunal in the final order dt. 10.9.99 has not discussed on the issue of limitation and not made out a case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice to the assessee after a gap of approximately two years and four months from the date of inspection at the factory of the assessee. In the present case, we find that show cause notice involved in the present demand for the period 1994-97 was issued on 6.8.1998 only demanding differential duty for the period March 1994-95 to March 1996-97. There is no suppression of facts by the appellant . By respectfully following the Supreme Court decision (supra), we hold that demand is hit by limitation. We do not find it necessary to consider the plea of appellant on the issue of excisability and other grounds raised by the appellant, as the demand is liable to be set aside on limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
