2017 (12) TMI 1615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , JJ. Shri Rajesh Chhibber (Advocate) for Appellant(s) Shri Mohd Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Archana Wadhwa As the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, the same are being disposed of by common order. 2. After hearing the both sides, we find that the appellant is manufacturer of sugar mills parts. They are also receiving old and worn out Sugar Mill Rollers .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... airly agrees that a part of the demand is subsequent to 16.06.2005 but assails the same on the point of limitation. For the above proposition, reliance is placed upon Tribunal s decision in the case of Jagat Machinery Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner reported at 2013 (32) STR 663 (Tribunal Delhi). 4. We find that an indentical issue was the subject matter of the said decision of the Tribunal, wherein i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nit and was filing returns under the Excise Act. In the said returns they have reflected the excisable goods as also not excisable goods. The re-conditioned shells were being shown by them as non excisable items. As such it can be safely concluded that the entire facts were being placed by the appellant before their Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, in which case no malafide can be attrib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X