2016 (11) TMI 780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ms. Surbhi Sinha, Advocate- for the appellant Shri Atul Handa, AR for the respondent PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders demanding duty and imposing penalty on both the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of cold rolled stainless steel patti/patta from hot rolled stainless steel patti/patta.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel for the appellant submits that as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Steel Strips Ltd.-1995 (77) ELT 248 (SC), Surbhi Enterprises-2005 (181) ELT 199 (SC) and Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd.-2004 (164) ELT 372 (SC), the activity of conversion of cold rolled stainless steel patti/patta from hot rolled stainless steel patti/patta does not amount to manufacture. In that circ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d paying duty, when the investigation was conducted on 26.12.2001, the appellant started paying duty from 1.1.2002. It was also submitted by the learned AR that the appellants were submitting nil ER-I returns during the impugned period by suppressing their turnover during the impugned period. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is invokable in this case. 6. Heard the parties and consid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion in favour of the appellant that the activity undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. We have seen that decision of the Apex Court in the case of Steel Strips Ltd. (supra) was delivered in the year 1995 and thereafter also the appellant was paying duty till 31.3.2000, it means the appellant was aware of the decision of the Hon'....