9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Mohammad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.144/ST/APPL/Noida/2011 dated 30/06/2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Noida. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 16/06/2009 wherein it was contended that for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not maintainable. The Original Authority did not appreciate the arguments and held that as per the plain reading of the said Notification the exemption was admissible to goods transported as a single consignment for which the freight charged was not above Rs. 750/- and if there are more than one consignment consigned to the same consignee then the exemption up to the limit of Rs. 1,500/- was ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law by them. Aggrieved by the confirmation of demand sustained through the impugned Order-in-Appeal, appellants have preferred present appeal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant, he has submitted that the demand was raised by invoking proviso to of Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 whereas the period for demand was from January, 2005 to March, 2008 and show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns requires declaration of only the taxable value and also the value on which tax is not being paid and obviously the value on which tax was not paid, was declared by them in their ST-3 returns and therefore, suppression is not established. We, therefore, hold that extended period was not invocable in the present case. 6. Therefore, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and allow the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
