TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws. 1.1 The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS pipes (galvanized) falling under Heading 7306 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of records maintained by the appellant for the period 2006-2007, it was detected by the Central Excise Officers that the job work activities undertaken by the appellant are not amounting to manufacture and also not covered under No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the present appeal is before this Tribunal. 2. Sh. Bipin Garg, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Department is barred by extended period of limitation. The period involved in the present case is 2006-2007, whereas the SCN has been issued on 16.01.2009, which is beyond the period of one year from the relevant date.&nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of time. To justify his above stand, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs HMM Ltd. reported in 1995 (76) ELT 497 (S.C.), Larsen & Turbo Ltd. vs CCE Pune-II reported in 2007 (211) ELT 513 (S.C.) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of S. Jain vs UOI reported in 2002 (144) ELT 262 (Del.). 3. Per contra, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion order and upheld in the impugned order is not justified. I find that the judgments cited by the Ld. Advocate are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The principles decided by the judicial forum with regard to limitation, is that the extended period of limitation entails both civil and criminal consequences and, therefore, must be specifically stated in the show c....