TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation - demand raised on the ground of limitation is not justified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 50856 of 2018 - A/52478/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 9-7-2018 - Sh. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate for the appellant Sh. K. Poddar, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: The present appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 35(CRM)CE/JPR/2017-18 dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner, CGST, Jodhpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant cleared certain used capital goods to their Denim plant which has been registered separately with Central Excise department. The invoice was issued after payment of duty on such capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his connection, she relied in the case of CCE C, Surat-II vs. Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (290) ELT 538 (Guj.) wherein the Hon ble Gujarat High Court held that clearance of mould without payment of duty to sister unit leads to a Revenue neutral situation wherein extended period was not invokable. 4. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue justified the impugned order. His arguments are summarised below: i) He submitted that the lower authorities have recorded that the appellant was not contesting the duty demand. Since the same has been admitted by the appellant, the impugned order may be sustained. Further, he submitted that the lower authority has recorded the justification for invoking the extended time limit. Consequently, the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty only during the course of audit. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has suppressed the facts from the Department. 8. I have also gone through the decision of the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in similar circumstances. The High Court has observed as under: 6. Even otherwise, the entire exercise was to end up in a revenue neutral situation since, admittedly, the goods were cleared by the appellant to its sister concern, which was registered with the Central Excise Department as a separate and distinct un it. In that view, following observations by the Tribunal deserve to be upheld. In any case, we find that the law on the above issue is no more res integra and stands settled by vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
