TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a vis principal was referred to Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Thermax Babcock Wilcox Ltd. extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in view of the decision of Tribunal in case of MARSHA PHARMA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA [ 2009 (6) TMI 818 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] . The demand beyond the normal period of limitation is set aside - penalty is also set aside - appeal allowed in part. - Excise Appeal No. 113 of 2009-DB - FINAL ORDER NO. A/11071/2019 - Dated:- 5-7-2019 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, Member (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, Member (TECHNICAL) Shri. P.M. Dave (Advocate) for the Appellant Shri. Govind Jha, Authorized representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-2004 to 2006-2007 and duty of ₹ 26,51,382/- was demanded. All the above allegation were bases on the assertion that none of the principals who had supplied the goods for manufacture of job work basis to the appellant were registered and they had not filed any declaration/ undertaking under Notification 214/86-CE. Ld. Counsel pointed out that Tribunal had held in many cases that the benefit of job work notification cannot be denied to job worker even if the supplier of raw material had not followed the procedure prescribed in Notification 214/86. He pointed out that even the Additional Commissioner had in the O-I-O held that the benefit of job work notification cannot be denied merely because the supplier of material had not followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Fabricators 2005 (191) ELT 339. 2.2 It was argued that in terms of Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner and enhance penalty only after giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order and that Commissioner can pass any order requiring payment of any duty not levied or paid or short payment only giving notice within the time limit prescribed under Section 11A to SCN against the proposed order. He argued that in this case no notice was issued thus the order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming demand of duty and imposition of penalty are without jurisdiction. He pointed out that in the instant case the receipt of goods, manufactured of finished goods on job work basis and retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Notification 214/86. He pointed out that only registered persons who are paying Central Excise duty can supply the goods under Notification 214/86. 4. Subsequently, vide additional submissions Ld. Counsel submitted that liability to duty in case of job work was in doubt and that doubt was settled to rest by decision of Larger Bench in case of Thermax Babcock Wilcox Ltd. (supra). He argued that since there was a dispute in law and the matter was referred to Larger Bench extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Marsha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (248) ELT 687. He argued that the fact that the matter was referred to Larger Bench, itself indicate that there was a reason to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
