2011 (2) TMI 992

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e delay. We accordingly, allow the COD application and proceed to decide the stay petition.   2. Out of the total demand of duty of Rs. 6,60,877/- the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. By treating the same as sufficient for the purpose of Section 35F, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and entire amount of penalty.   3. At this stage, we find that the issue involved in the appeal stands decided against the appellants on merits by the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court s decision. Learned advocate fairly agrees that the issue is decided against them on merits but submits that the demand raised beyond the limitation period i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he year 2008, no willful mis-statement or suppression can be attributed to the appellants for invoking the longer period of limitation. He also draws our attention to various decisions of the Tribunal, wherein by taking note of the above fact, demands beyond the normal period have been struck down. He draws our attention to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Marsha Pharma Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Vadodara 2009 (248) ELT 687 (Tri. Ahmd.). For better appreciation, we reproduce Para -3 of the said judgment :-   3.?We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the submissions that the issue was referred to Larger Bench in April, 2008. He however, states that period inv....