TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as set to rest only by the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pagariya Auto Center Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad, [2014 (2) TMI 98 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] - Especially when there was confusion on this issue, nothing prevented the Department from having issued Show Cause Notices at regular intervals for the normal period of limitation. The demand in this case is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed the demand of ₹ 19,21,070/- with interest thereon on this score and has also imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 rejected the appeal. Hence, appellants are now before this forum. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri T. R. Ramesh, appearing for the appellant, submits that they do not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as mired in litigation and was set to rest only by the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pagariya Auto Center Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad, 2014 (33) S.T.R. 506 (Tri. LB.). Especially when there was confusion on this issue, nothing prevented the Department from having issued Show Cause Notices at regular intervals for the normal period of limitation. In the even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason. So we are of the view that the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation. In such a situation penalties are not imposable either. 6. Following the rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
