2014 (12) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: Shri Prakash Shah, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Shobha Ram, Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: Ashok Jindal: The main appellant namely Larsen & Toubro Ltd. is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of duties of Rs. 1,61,61,27,251/- and Rs. 6,37,544/- have been confirmed along with interest. Penalties have also been imposed on the main appellant as well as on the co-appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xtended period of limitation. The goods were ultimately confiscated with an option to release the goods on payment of redemption fine. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants are before us. 3. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 4. The issue whether the parts in question are automobile parts or earth moving equipments has come up before this Tribunal in the case of CCE Pune v. JC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of goods under Rule 25. Accordingly, penalties and confiscation are set aside." Therefore, in this case also we hold that although the appellants have no case on merit but on limitation they are having a case as the show-cause notice dated 09.08.2012 has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation. Hence, the proceedings under the said show-cause notice are set aside. 3.1 As the....