TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. RAJU, HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Appellant : Sh. Hardik Modh (advocate) For Respondent : Sh. K. Kinariwala (AR) ORDER Per : Mr. Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Printed Paper Label and Printed Film Labels fall under chapter 48-49 respectively of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In pursuance of an intelligence to the effect that the appellant company are indulging in evasion of Central Excise duty by way of clearing the excisable goods, namely, Printed Film Labels under chapter sub heading 49119990 at nil rate of duty. This goods are infect were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. Hence, the demand is not sustainable for the longer period on the ground of time bar. He also submits that since there is no malafide intention penalty against the appellant company as well as personal penalty against the director are not imposable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Sudio Printal (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-I-2004 9172) ELT 402 (Tri. Del) Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Vadodara-2003 (152) ELT 262 (SC) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad-II 2003 (161) ELT 251 (Tri. Mum) S K Enterprises vs CCE Delhi 2004 (175) ELT 686 (Tri. Del) Komal Trading Co. vs CC (Import), Mumbai- 2014 (301) ELT 506 (Tri. Mum) 3. Sh. K.J. Kinariwala Ld. Deputy Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that though the appellant have placed various correspondences to show that there is no suppression of fact but instead of dealing with those material, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) conveniently ignored the same and concurred with the adjudicating authority. Therefore as regard the limitation, the Ld. Commissioner has not passed a speaking order. We are, therefore, of the view that the Ld. Commissioner must re-consider the issue of limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to re-consider the issue on limitation. However, the issue on merit as regard levy of duty is not open. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). ( Pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
