2012 (11) TMI 959

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant. Paresh M. Dave for the Respondent. ORDER Akil Kureshi, J. - Department has preferred this appeal calling in question the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) dated 23.2.11. Following questions have been raised for our consideration : "1.  Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....recovered from the respondent. The respondent replied to the show cause notice and contended that there was no manufacturing process involved. It was the case of the respondent that the marketability of the fabrics is fulfilled only when it was bleached and some process is done. Only thereafter such gauze fabric is marketable. The process undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacturing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat there was no manufacturing activity and since the Commissioner also upheld such view of the assessee, larger period of limitation could not be applied. On such basis while upholding the demand in part, for the period beyond one year from the date of show cause notice, the demand was quashed. It is this judgment of the Tribunal, which the Department has challenged to the extent the same is agai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erefore larger period of limitation would be invoked. It may be that such issue of allegation was not in so many words denied by the respondent. However, in the show cause notice and during personal hearing before the Commissioner, the central defence of the respondent was that the respondent undertook no manufacturing activity to bring into existence gauze fabrics. Further that before further pro....