TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so, the subsequent Show Cause Notices cannot invoke the extended period of limitation. In the circumstances, the impugned Order affirming the demand for the period from 01.12.2008 to 31.10.2011, initiated by the Show Cause Notice dated 19.07.2012, can be sustained only for the normal period of limitation, to be calculated backwards from the date of issue of the Notice. For this, the demand for the remaining portion will consequentially be set aside - For the limited purpose of re-calculating the duty liability for the normal period of limitation, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No.: E/40617/2013 - Final Order No. 40425/2019 - Dated:- 8-3-2019 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 confirmed the demand of the amount of duty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice with interest thereon, ordering enforcement of the B-17 Bond to appropriate the amounts demanded. However, no penalty under Section 11AC ibid was imposed. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri. Raghavan Ramabadran made oral and written submissions, which are summarized as under : (i) The only allegation is that the appellant has used duty-free imported raw materials/inputs like rough granite blocks, multi-colour granites, abrasives, tin oxide powder, epoxy paste, etc., in the manufacture of finished goods viz. granite slabs. (ii) The bar under con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities when the first Show Cause Notice was issued, same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee in subsequent Show Cause Notices. Hence, the impugned proceedings, which are in the nature of a recurring Show Cause Notice issued on 19.07.2012 for the period from December 2008 to October 2011 cannot be sustained beyond the normal period of limitation i.e., one year from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice. (vi) Ld. Advocate also contends that the adjudicating authority has calculated the differential duty by including Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education (SHE) Cess on the total excise duty. This cess, commonly called third- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter or Heading No. or Sub-heading No. Description of Goods Amount of Duty Conditions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [3A (i) 50 to 63; (ii)25 or 68 (i)Textile and textile articles; (ii) Granite and granite articles. In excess of an amount equal to the aggregate of duties of excise leviable un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Factory (supra). 8.2 In the circumstances, the impugned Order affirming the demand for the period from 01.12.2008 to 31.10.2011, initiated by the Show Cause Notice dated 19.07.2012, can be sustained only for the normal period of limitation, to be calculated backwards from the date of issue of the Notice. For this, the demand for the remaining portion will consequentially be set aside. So ordered. 9. For the limited purpose of re-calculating the duty liability for the normal period of limitation, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. In such de novo adjudication, the third-time cess will not be included as per the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Kumar Arch Tech. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
