TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent Per: Ashok Jindal: Heard both the sides. 2. After hearing both the sides at length, we find that the issue involved in this case is of very narrow compass and, therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit, we take up the appeals also for final disposal, as agreed by both the sides. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants were undertaking the activity of job-work, which is chargeable to excise duty. Demands were confirmed along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before us. 4. Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that, on merits the appellants are not having any case as their activity of job-work is subject to Central Excise dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, the allegation of suppression is not sustainable. Since the allegation of suppression is not sustainable, the extended period of limitation also cannot be invoked. Therefore, these demands are barred by limitation as the show-cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. He further relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.B. Maheshwari vs. Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Till 2007, the appellants were not asked by the department to pay Central Excise duty on their job-work charges. All of a sudden, in 2007 a show-cause notice, by invoking the extended period of limitation, has been issued on the ground that the appellants were liable to pay Central Excise duty on these job-work charges. As the appellants were filing their declarations regularly and they are unde....