2013 (12) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium door and window frames for which they entered into a contract with various corporate centres. Inquiries conducted at the corporate centres i.e. the appellants buyers premises revealed that n duty of excise was being paid by them on the said aluminium doors and windows, which were being fabricated at site only. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confirmation of duty of Rs.64.49 lakhs approximately. 3. During the course of adjudication, the appellant took a stand that the said fabrication was got done by them from various further sub-contractors out of the raw materials supplied by the appellant. As such, it is the sub-contractors, who ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate, Shri J.P. Kaushik, at the stage, is not pursuing the ground of sub-contractors being the manufacturers. He submits that even if the appellants are considered as the manufacturers of Aluminium doors and window frames, the demand has to be held as barred by limitation inasmuch as the same was raised for the period 1989-99 and for the period 1999-2000 whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 28.6.2011. As such, the major part of the demand would be barred by limitation. 7. We find that admittedly the appellants were undertaking the identical activities at Noida also and no demand stands raised by the excise authorities at Noida till date. This fact itself can be considered to be sufficient for the appellant to entertain a reaso....