TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /N. 49/1997. Time limitation - Held that:- The demand pertaining to the period August 1997 has been raised by issue of Show Cause Notice, dt. 01/09/2002 by invoking the extended period of limitation available to Revenue in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - there is no single act on the part of the appellant of collusion or suppression. No specific fact or omission thereof has been cited in the Show Cause Notice - the fact of clearance of waste and scrap lying in stock on 31/07/1997 was within the knowledge of the Department - demand is hit by time-bar. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/411/2008 - FO/76864/2018 - Dated:- 30-10-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and scrap of such products which are in stock as on 31/07/1997, will not be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 49/1997 and other notifications issued w.e.f. 01/08/1997. The Revenue was of the view that the appellant has wrongly claimed the benefit of above Notification and hence would be liable for payment of duty, since this scrap was lying in stock as on 31/08/1997, prior to the introduction of compounded levy w.e.f. 01/09/1997. The Show Cause Notice dated 01/09/2002 was introduced proposing to demand the duty amounting to ₹ 4,35,506/-. The issue was decided by the Original Authority vide order dated 31/03/06 ordering payment of duty along with interest and penalty of an equal amount. When the issue was challenged before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be no room for doubt that the waste and scrap arising out of the hot rolled products manufactured under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A will be liable to Payment of Duty and will not be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 49/1997. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned order may be upheld. 7. Heard both sides and perused the record. 8. The dispute is regarding the liability for payment of duty on the waste and scrap which had arisen during the manufacture of various hot rolled products within the factory. It is not in dispute that such waste and scrap has arisen during a period when the appellant was not paying the duty under the compounded levy scheme introduced under Section 3A w.e.f. 01/09/1997. In terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
