TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tify the demand failing within the normal period. Penalty - Held that:- on account of absence of any malafide, penalty not warranted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/00361/2009 - 40645/2018 - Dated:- 12-3-2018 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) For the Appellant Ms. Vishnu Priya, Adv. For the Respondent Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR) Per Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both sides duly represented by Ms. Vishnu Priya, Advocate for the appellants and Shri R, Subramanian, AC (AR) for the Revenue, we note that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various chemicals, The dispute in the present appeal relates to the valuation of Epichlorohydr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able value of the final product. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that inasmuch as, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits and has not considered the question of limitation, the matter was remanded to Tribunal with directions to find out whether or not extended period of limitation was available to the department. 2. It is seen that in remand proceedings the matter was taken-up by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. IFGL Refractories Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Bhubaneswar reported in 2006 (206) E.L.T.728 (Tri.- Kolkata), wherein the demand raised was held to be barred by limitation. It was observed that the fact of use of advance licences was disclosed to the Revenue and as such t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the majority decision but the benefit of limitation was extended to the assessee by observing that the entire issue was revenue neutral. For holding in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal took note of the development in M/s. IFGL Refractories Ltd's case. 4. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue, we note that major part of the demand is barred by limitation. Admittedly, during the relevant period, the law as interpreted by the Tribunal was in favour of the assessee. However, the entire issue was revenue neutral. In such a scenario, no malafide can be attributed to the assessee, so as to invoke the larger period of limitation. We accordingly agree with the learned Advocate that extended pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
