TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t: - The appellant has stopped paying duty with effect from 1.4.2000 till 31.3.2001 and no reason has been stated by the appellant why they stopped paying duty. Moreover the intention of the appellant to suppress the facts is made clear from their act of filing nil ER-I returns. As the appellant has suppressed their clearance of cold rolled steel patta and patti from the department by showing nil ER-I returns and from 1.1.2002, the appellant has resumed paying duty on their activity by understanding that their activity amounts to manufacture, In that circumstance, we hold that the adjudicating authority has rightly invoked the extended period of limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/3026-3027/2006-Ex( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhi Enterprises-2005 (181) ELT 199 (SC) and Tata Iron Steel Co.Ltd.-2004 (164) ELT 372 (SC), the activity of conversion of cold rolled stainless steel patti/patta from hot rolled stainless steel patti/patta does not amount to manufacture. In that circumstance, the appellants are not liable to pay duty. 4. It is further submitted that as the show cause notice has been issued on 29.3.2005 for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.12.2001 invoking the extended period of limitation, therefore, the demand is barred by limitation. 5. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that in the case of Gujarat Industries 2015 (326) ELT 625 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has examined the issue and has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision in favour of the appellant that the activity undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. We have seen that decision of the Apex Court in the case of Steel Strips Ltd. (supra) was delivered in the year 1995 and thereafter also the appellant was paying duty till 31.3.2000, it means the appellant was aware of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court was paying duty by understanding that their activity amounts to manufacture. The appellant has stopped paying duty with effect from 1.4.2000 till 31.3.2001 and no reason has been stated by the appellant why they stopped paying duty. Moreover the intention of the appellant to suppress the facts is made clear from their act of filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
