TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of limitation under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? [B] Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and consider issue between the same parties covering same period for invocation of extended period of limitation, which is already decided by its coordinate Bench in Appeal No.850/91-D dated 22.11.1994? [C] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law by exonerating respondent from payment of duty liability for sum of Rs.19,87,123/- under sub-section (2) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and liability to make payment of penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- under Rule 173....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he High Court. It was contended that against the earlier order of the Tribunal, the respondent assessee had preferred appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal only as regards the classification dispute, hence, the order of the Tribunal insofar as the question of limitation is concerned was not subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court, and as such the Tribunal in remand could not have passed a contrary order. It was argued that the Tribunal could not have traveled beyond the scope of remand and considered the question of invocation of the larger period of limitation. Alternatively, it was submitted that that before the Supreme Court, the order of the Tribunal had been challenged only qua the question of classification and tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntions of the assessee on the question of the demand being beyond the period of limitation and has held as follows : "... ... We agree with the above contention of the appellant. Admittedly, during the relevant period, there was Board's Circular in favour of the assessee, as also the entire dispute of correct classification was the subject matter of various decision of the Tribunal. Even Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal being in favour of the assessee, is sufficient fact and reasonable cause for them to entertain bonafide belief that the Taspa Yarn is not classifiable under Head 56. As such, it has to be held that there was no suppression or mis-statement on the part of the appellant with an intent to evade payment of duty so as to ju....