TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Shetty, Advocate for Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (A.R.) for Respondent ORDER Per : Raju These two appeals have been filed against the same Order-in- Original one by M/s Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd. and another by Shri Raghbir Singh Chaney. The matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal for redetermination of issue in terms of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Interscape Ors Vs. CCE, Calcutta-I - 2001 (43) RLT 350 (CEGAT-Kol). In remand proceedings the demand was again confirmed and penalty was imposed against M/s Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd. as well as Shri Raghbir Singh Chaney. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they were engaged in undertaking contracts for construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lised by the first Order-in-Original. He further pointed out that the present Order-in-Original does not give any finding on limitation. He argued that the impugned order wrongly place onus on them to prove the fact the goods were fixture and not furniture. Learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of M.N. Furniture Vs. CCE, Belapur reported at 2017 (347) ELT 373 (Tri.-Mumbai) to assert that it was a issue of interpretation and therefore the appeal should be allowed on the ground of limitation. He also argue that the show-cause notice does not invoke any specific sub-clause of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore in terms of decision of Apex Court in the case of Amrit Foods Vs. CCE, UP reported a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter in the light of their observations. In view of this, it was argued that there cannot be any intention to evade duty because of the various interpretations. When a question of interpretation is involved, it is not correct to allege suppression and invoke the longer period. If this view is upheld, it was argued, that some of the demands would be entirely hit by time bar and in certain cases, the demands had to be limited to the normal period. Further, it was urged that the assessee had entertained a bona fide belief that substantial part of the claim cannot be sustained. Non-disclosure or not taking of a licence was not done with an intention to evade payment of duty. The following case-la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
