TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 19-12-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. MH Sukheja, Advocate for appellant Shri. VK Shastri, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the job work of their Vadodara unit. The Vadodara unit filed an intimation as required under Notification No. 214/86 dated 02/04/86 for supply of BQ plates to the appellants for bending process. The BQ plates were supplied under challans. The appellant after processing, return the processed goods to their principal unit without payment of duty. After the said process, the goods were used by the principal unit in Vadodara at site of IOCL for erection and installation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o their jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner regarding the entire activity and contended that the activity does not come under the purview of the Central Excise. Thereafter, the appellant's Vadodara unit vide letter dated 20/05/2000 filed an application for removal of input in terms of Notification No.214/86 and a copy of the same was submitted to the appellant's jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. With this correspondence, the entire activity of supply of raw materials by the Vadodara unit and job work done by the appellants were well disclosed to the department. The show-cause notice issued on 06/05/2002 for the period 20/07/2000 to 18/08/2000. Therefore, the show-cause notice was issued after the stipulated period of one year. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner, Central Excise, Div.l. Vadodara and a copy of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai regarding removal of BQ plates to the appellant unit under Notification No.214/86. 6. From the above correspondence, we find that the entire modus operandi of the appellants as well as their principal supplier of the inputs was disclosed to the departmental officer. If at all the department is of the view that the appellant is liable to pay duty nothing prevented them to issue a show-cause notice within the stipulated time period of one year. However, it is apparent from the records that show-cause notice for the period 20/07/2000 to 18/08/2000 was issued on 06/05/2002, i.e. much after one year of the transaction of the goods. As pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
