TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw. For the sake of convenience, we shall be eliciting the facts from Civil Appeal Nos. 6999-7000 of 2003. The appellant in this case is running a proprietorship concern which is engaged in the business of cutting larger steel plates into smaller size and shapes as required by the customers. The specification, size, etc., to which the larger size plates are to be cut into smaller sizes are provided by the customers, and the plates are also supplied by them to the appellant. After cutting the plates into smaller plates as per the specifications provided, the same are supplied back to the customers. It is a matter of record that the cutting operation is undertaken with the help of gas cutting machines, which process is known as profile cutti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority taking shelter under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act holding that it was the case of the suppression and misrepresentation by the appellant and therefore, limitation period stood extended to five years, for initiating action against the appellant. The appellant preferred appeal against the said order before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT'). However, even the said appeal has been dismissed by the CEGAT vide judgment dated 24.03.2003. Challenging that order, the present appeal is preferred. We may state at the outset that though Mr. V.Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, initially made an endevour to demonstrate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as in doubt, even at the higher level of the Department it would not be proper to invoke the extended period and clamp the levy of duty for the extended period. Therefore, in fairness the levy shall be restricted for the last six months only. In the circumstances, I do not impose any penalty on Shri Dilawar R. Shaikh under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944." Reading the aforesaid extracted portion, it becomes abundantly clear that even as per the Department, there were certain doubts relating to excisability of the process of profile cutting. In view thereof, if the appellant also had nurtured this belief that the process carried out by him does not amount to manufacture and did not pay the excise duty, we can safely infer that ....