TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the supplier the Appellant cannot be find faulted with. The Revenue has not been able to bring on record any evidence as to collusion of Appellant with M/s Jaitex - in such view of facts the Appellant cannot be held responsible for the alleged offences. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - In view of the facts which clearly does not show any act on the part of the Appellant to evade duty payment we hold that the demands raised by invoking extending period of limitation is not sustainable against the Appellant - penalty also set aside - demand only for normal period upheld. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/239/2008EX[DB] - A/91661/2017 - Dated:- 29-12-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Raju, Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Both the show cause notices were adjudicated vie Order dt. 22.01.2008 wherein the Commissioner held that M/s Jaitex is liable to duty and penalties as there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to evade duty payment and they have not suppresses any fact. Also the deemed credit to the Appellant was also allowed. The revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the duty has to be recovered from the Appellant. The Tribunal remanded back the case to the adjudicating authority. Vide Order dt. 25.01.2008 the adjudicating authority confirmed demand against the Appellant on the ground that being actual manufacture of the goods they are liable to pay duty in terms of Notification No. 27/92 C E (NT). The processor agrees to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f grey fabric which was used as input, hence they are not eligible for the deemed credit. He submits that since there is no misdeclaration of value of grey fabrics on their part hence in terms of notification no. 29/96 (CE), they cannot be denied the deemed credit. He also submits that the demands are barred by limitation as there was no suppression or misdeclaration on their part. The show cause notice for the period Jan 98 to May 98 was issued on 20.07.98 whereas the show cause for the period April 96 to Nove 97 was issued on 13.11.98 by invoking extended period. He submits that since there was no suppression or misdeclaration on their part hence extended period cannot be invoked and the deemed credit cannot be denied. In support, he plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cost sheet data furnished by the merchant/ trader M/s Jaitex was filed by Appellants. The same is apparent from the statement of Shri Mehra, Proprietor of the Unit and Shri R. Prasad, Authorised signatory. There is no evidence that the Appellant has suppressed or misdeclared the prices. For the incorrect value furnished by the supplier the Appellant cannot be find faulted with. The Revenue has not been able to bring on record any evidence as to collusion of Appellant with M/s Jaitex. We find that in such view of facts the Appellant cannot be held responsible for the alleged offences. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance of Tribunal s judgments and the same has been upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court. The judgment of Tribunal in case of M/s G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
