TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r earlier show cause notice dated 17th September, 2004 on the self-same issue, relied upon in the subject show cause notice dated 27th March, 2007. Thus, everything was to their knowledge. There was no suppression of any fact. That question and any other factual issue with regard to the suppression of facts ought to have been gone into in detail by the learned tribunal. When the impugned order of the tribunal is challenged on the above ground that it was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and in ignorance of the law of limitation, then, it cannot be said that the appeal has a relation to classification of goods, its valuation or the rate of duty. It is neither directly nor indirectly related to these questions - Since, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In those circumstances, this intended appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the dispute between the parties was a classification dispute? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order of the tribunal dated 29th June 2018 was perverse for not properly adjudicating the dispute of the parties with regard to classification and passing the order in breach of the principle of natural justice? As the respondent is represented by learned counsel, issuance and service of notice of appeal are dispensed with. Advocate-on-record for the appellant is directed to file i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation for issuing the show cause notice is one year, extendable to five years in case of suppression of materials by the assessee. However, the real disputes between the parties are with respect to the type of service rendered. According to the appellant, they are rendering watch and ward service, which is not a taxable service. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the appellant relies on a certificate dated 4th December, 2018 issued by the chief operations manager of Metro Railway certifying that the appellant was acting as facilitators for directing passengers through automated ticket gates, to guide commuters regarding purchase of tickets, carrying baggages and other miscellaneous jobs relating to overall upkeep of the premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Annapurna Plastic Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2019 (367) ELT 220 (ALL) iii. Commssioner of CGST Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. 2019 (365) ELT252 (Bom) iv. Padmavati Tubes Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ST. Vapir, 2017 (351) ELT38 (Guj.) v. Chamunda Synprocess (1) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.m Jt. Commr. C. Ex. Commissionerate, Jaipur-II, 2019 (365) 12 (Raj) He argued that the demand was barred by the laws of limitation. It was for the period as stated by us i.e. from September, 2001 till May, 2005 for which the show cause notice was issued on 27th March, 2007. The same dispute arose between the parties earlier as apparent from demand notice dated 17 th September, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er show cause notice dated 17th September, 2004 on the self-same issue, relied upon in the subject show cause notice dated 27th March, 2007. Thus, everything was to their knowledge. There was no suppression of any fact. That question and any other factual issue with regard to the suppression of facts ought to have been gone into in detail by the learned tribunal. When the impugned order of the tribunal is challenged on the above ground that it was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and in ignorance of the law of limitation, then, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the appeal has a relation to classification of goods, its valuation or the rate of duty. It is neither directly nor indirectly related to these questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
