TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beginning that the goods were cleared prior to October 1999 and received back during the period October 1999 to November 2004 and subsequently cleared in November 2004 without payment of duty. This stand of the appellant needs to be considered for deciding the issue and appellant has made out a case that they had no malafide intention in removal of the goods in November 2004 - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1078/2009-DB - A/30343/2019 - Dated:- 14-3-2019 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Mr Anil Kumar B Adv for the Appellant. Mr A.V.L.N. Chary, A.R. for the Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 60/2009(V-II) CE dated 31.08.2009. 2. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears, a show-cause notice was issued for demand of the duty along with interest and also for imposition of penalty by invoking extended period of limitation. He would submit that in the facts of this case, since the amount stands paid before the issuance of show-cause notice and the authorities were aware of the same, the demand be set sides on limitation only. He relies upon the following judgements of the Apex Court 1) Nestle India Ltd [2009 (235) ELT 577 (SC)] 2) Gopal Zarda Udyog Vs CCE New Delhi [2005(188) ELT 251 (SC)] 3) Continental Foundation Jt Venture Vs CCE Chandigarh [2007(216) ELT 177(SC)] 4) Kushal Fertilizers(P) Ltd Vs CCE Meerut [2009(238) ELT 21(SC)] . 5. Learned A.R. reiterates the findings of the lower auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voking extended period. In my view allegation of suppression can not stand the scrutiny of the law, as appellant has been stating from the beginning that the goods were cleared prior to October 1999 and received back during the period October 1999 to November 2004 and subsequently cleared in November 2004 without payment of duty. This stand of the appellant in my view needs to be considered for deciding the issue and appellant has made out a case that they had no malafide intention in removal of the goods in November 2004. The judgements cited by the learned counsel are directly on the issue and point and accordingly, I hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
