TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xciseability of the structural fabricated for their own use. Accordingly the allegation of suppression shall not subsist following the ratio laid down by the apex court in the judgement in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ]. Suppression with intention to cause evasion only invites extended period. Finding that the confusion in law has only caused difficulties to both sides, it is not possible to hold that it is the case of suppression of fact with intention to cause evasion, to invoke extended period. Accordingly, the adjudications suffer from limitation for which that is unsustainable. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/125 -127 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (130) ELT 401 (S.C.). Apex Court held that the structural fabricated by a factory for use in its roofing amounts to manufacture. Therefore, appellants had no obligation under law to disclose above fact to excise authorities following Tribunal decision since Tribunal had held that the fabrication of roof structure does not amount to manufacture under section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, appellant had not suppressed any facts for which levy of duty and penalty under the adjudication shall not sustain. 2. Revenue on the other hand supports the adjudication holding that Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. - 1995 (76) ELT 481 (S.C.) has held that the goods in question are dutiable. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have done would not render it suppression. When the Revenue invokes the extended period of limitation under Section 11A the burden is cast upon it to prove suppression of fact. An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a willful misstatement. The latter implies making of an incorrect statement with the knowledge that the statement was not correct (Emphasis supplied). 5. Finding that the confusion in law has only caused difficulties to both sides, it is not possible to hold that it is the case of suppression of fact with intention to cause evasion, to invoke extended period. Accordingly, the adjudications suffer from limitation for which that is unsustainable. 6. We make it clear that when law was made clear by the Larger Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
