2011 (6) TMI 571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ered Accountant for the appellant. Shri V.K. Singh, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order demanding duty, interest and imposing penalty on the ground that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture, therefore, they are liable to pay Central Excise duty on their clearances. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssued to the appellants demanding duty for the period 1998-99. The same was adjudicated, demands were confirmed along with interest and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Shri Sunil Nawandhar, Chartered Accountant, appeared on behalf of the appellant and submits that, in the appellant's own cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts that the case law relied upon by the appellant in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory is not applicable to the appellant, as in that case, the assessee was having their fixed factory where they were having their manufacturing unit, but in this case, the appellant is undertaking turnkey contracts and were working at the site of their clients.Therefore, it cannot be said that the department was havin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hin one year of the knowledge obtained by the department with regard to the activity of the appellant at site. It is a fact on record that the appellant was engaged in turnkey contracts and for the earlier period i.e., 1994-97 on the same activity a show-cause notice was issued on 31/03/2000 wherein this Tribunal has held that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Following the case ....