9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The appellant is engaged in the business of interior designing and furnishing. They undertake contracts for the said purpose, which inter alia includes manufacture of various furniture items at site. The impugned demand stands confirmed against the appellant by arriving at a finding that they have manufactured furniture and have cleared the same without payment of duty. 2. It is seen that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixed piece by piece at site. We also note that an identical dispute dealing with identical pleas raised by the assessee was the subject matter of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Interscape v. CCE, Calcutta- I. As such, we are of the view that the legal issues having been settled in the above judgment, the present appeal is required to be re-adjudicated in the light of the same. At this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question of discharge of duty liability by the appellant on the basis of the contracts with the Principals and sub-letting the actual works to other parties at site, but retaining overall control of these activities. Therefore, liability of duty has occurred on a point of law and consequently there existed a reasonable basis for doubt in discharge of duty liability. I, therefore, accept the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of limitation would not be available to the Revenue. We also note that the above findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), for the purposes of setting aside penalty and interest, do not stand challenged by the Revenue. As such, they had attained finality. The same reasons, which are applicable for non-imposition of penalty, are applicable for non-invocation of the longer period of limitation. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
