Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Indo Asian Fusegear Ltd vs C.C.E., Noida on 11 July, 2016

        

 

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD


Ex. Appeal No. 2137/2007
Arising out of O/A No.48-CE/APPL/NOIDA/07 dated  14.05.2007 passed by Commr. (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs & S.Tax, Noida.
For approval and signature:

HONBLE  MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)


1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see                   
the  Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the 
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?                                    : No

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication                   
in any authoritative report or not?                                    : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy 
of  the Order?                                                                 : Seen

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?                                                                    : Yes


Indo Asian Fusegear Ltd. 
                                      APPELLANT(S)      
          VERSUS
C.C.E., NOIDA	        	                                                RESPONDENT(S)				

APPEARANCE Shri Arun Pathak (Adv.) & Shri Atul Sharma (Adv.) for the Appellant(s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh,(Supdt.) (AR) for the Department (s) CORAM:

HONBLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING & PRONOUNCEMENT : 11. 07. 2016 FINAL ORDER NO._70457/2016______________________ Per Mr. Anil G. SHAKKARWAR :
The present appeal is filed against the order in appeal No. 48/CE/APPL/NOIDA/07 dated 14-05-2007.

2. The facts of the case are that appellants imported time switches, plug sockets, molded case circuit breakers etc. and the goods were unpacked into individual packets and individual packets were pasted with labels. The Revenue detained the goods valued at Rs.13,17,624/- vide Panchanama dated 16-12-2004 since it appeared to revenue that the activity of appellants amounted to manufacture as provided under Section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. On 16-02-2006, the show cause notice was issued to appellant invoking the extended period of limitation by demanding Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 1,53,692/- with a proposal to appropriate the same against duty deposited by appellant amounting to Rs.2,19,300/-. There were other proposals related to interest and penalty in the said show cause notice. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through O/O 16/AC/N-IV/06 dt. 28-11-2006.

3. The original authority has taken into consideration the submissions made by appellant and confirmed the demand. The said order in original was challenged before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who has decided the appeal through Order-in-Appeal dated 14-05-2007.

4. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere with the original order therefore, the appellants are before us.

5. In the grounds of appeal the appellant contested the applicability of Clause (iii) of Section 2 (f) of the Act and relied on various pronouncements.

6. Heard the Ld. Counsel. In addition to their contentions that Clause (iii) of Section 2 (f) is not applicable to their activity, he has also pleaded that the show cause notice is hit by time bar.

7. The ld. Departmental representative has contended that statement was recorded on 16-05-2005 and Show cause notice was issued on 16-02-2006 and therefore, the show cause notice is not barred by limitation.

8. I have taken into consideration the rival contentions. The show cause notice indicates that the appellants activity came to the knowledge of the department on 16-12-2004. Therefore, the normal period of one year for demand of duty under Section 11-A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was available to Revenue up to 16-12-2005.

9. The show cause notice was issued on 16-02-2006. Therefore, I find that the show cause notice is time barred. Therefore, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

 (Pronounced in the open Court)
             Sd/-	                                                                                   (ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR)                                                                                     MEMBER (TECHNICAL)                               

			
(Ansari)






2
Ex. Appeal No.2137/07