2015 (10) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : None. ORDER The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 22.08.2013 to  the extent that its contentions with respect to the applicability of the extended period of limitation prescribed in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not allowed. The assessee claimed the benefit of Exemption Notification no.8/2000- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r 2000 (119) ELT 30 and subsequently followed in Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore-II, 2001 (136) ELT 1155, the charge of fraud, etc. in claiming exemption for the limited purpose of invoking the extended period was not available. Therefore, even while upholding the demand for normal period, the excise authorities were enjoined not to invoke the extended period. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... there was a view which supported its declaration. In other words, during the period which was sought to be covered by the show cause notice, the Larger Bench ruling in Prakash Industries (supra) was in force. As far as the merits were concerned, the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the lower authorities. We have considered the rulings of the Tribunal in Prakash Industries (supra) which was follo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X