TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to manufacture. But the authorities below have relied upon the decision in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. which subsequently held that the structure in the movable state will be subject to duty - when there are conflicting decisions, the appellant has a bona fide belief and no suppression can be alleged against the appellant and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in such a situation. Also, the facts were within the knowledge of the Department in 2005 itself but showcause notice was issued on 24/01/2008. Therefore, demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed on limitation itself. - E/508/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21323/2018 - Dated:- 3-9-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same is passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture as the activity carried out is cutting of aluminium profile into doors and windows and this cutting and drilling holes does not give separate identity to the goods. He further submitted that the specifications are project specific and frames made are fixed to the structures and becomes part of the immovable property thus rendering it non-excisable under the Central Excise Act. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2016(46) STR 373 (Tri. Bang.)] vi. Hindustan Tyre Resoles Vs. CCE, Belgaum [2017(6) GSTL 185 (Tri. Bang.)] vii. Contenental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007(216) ELT 177 (SC)] 4.3. He further submitted that the period involved in the present case is from 01/04/2002 to 31/03/2005 whereas the show-cause notice was issued on 24/01/2008 which is clearly barred by limitation of one year as prescribed under law. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, we find that the period involved in the present case is 01/04/2002 to 31/03/2005 whereas the show-cause notice was iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
