9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant fairly concedes that the issue of classification stand resolved finally in favour of the Revenue in the appellant's own case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2009 (243) ELT 321 (SC) whereby the appellant's appeal was rejected and the Tribunal's adverse order No. A/831/WZB/AHD/2008 dated 23.04.2008 was upheld. The said order of the Tribunal covered the demand period from Feb 2001 to Nov 2002. He submits that prior to aforesaid order in appeal dated 27.08.2004, there were following 2 favourable orders in appeal: i. Order in appeal No. 533/96 (80-BRD)CE/AHD/Coll(A) dated 28.11.1990 covering the Period: 1.6.1987 to 30.09.1987 & 1.10.1987 to 18.12.1987; and ii. Order in appeal No. Commr.(A)/234/VDR/98 dated 25.02.98 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mere such delay, when the appellant was holding a very strong bonafide belief about the production being not chargeable to duty, cannot, by itself, prove the existence of wilful suppression or misstatement of facts, etc. He placed reliance on the following judgments: * Shree Baidyanth Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd 2000 (126) ELT 879 (T), 2003 (153) ELT A300 (SC), 2004 (165) ELT 494 (SC) * Chemphar Drugs & Liniments 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC) * Cosmic Dye Chemicals 1995 (6) RLT 333 (SC) * Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC) 3. It is significant that in case of Appeal No. E/864/2010, even when the appellant furnished the information on 28.02.1997, the SCN came to be issued only after 2 years, i.e. on 16.02.1999, whereas the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to evade payment of duty, therefore, extended period was rightly invoked. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records, we find that the merit of the case is settled against the appellant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appellant's own case reported in 2009 (243) ELT 321 (SC). Ld. Counsel made his entire submission only on limitation. In this regard, we find that the case which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court covered the period February 2001 to November 2002. In the present case, the period involved is March 1994 to August 1996, November 1997 to January 2011 and December2002 to February 2004. It is observed that the issue involved in the present case has been disputed right f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents, it cannot be said that there is suppression of fact particularly on the issue of classification on the part of the appellant. The extended period was invoked in the present case despite the fact that for the earlier period, the department kept on issuing the SCN. It is the settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC) that once on the particular issue, SCN was issued, for the subsequent period, SCN for the extended period cannot be issued. 6. We are therefore, of the view that there is no suppression of fact, mis-declaration, collusion, fraud on the part of the appellant in the facts and circumstance of the present case, therefore, the demand for the extended period i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
