2016 (12) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S. Muthuvenkataraman, Adv., For the applicant  Shri  L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR), For the respondent       ORDER It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the structural items fabricated by them were meant for housing the manufacturing facility.  Appellant M/s. Quality Fabricators, in appeal No. E/126/2006 was only the manufacturer of Electric ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no dutiability of the goods in question till the Man Structurals Ltd., case decided by Tribunal was reversed by Apex Court in the year 2001 as reported in CCE, Jaipur Vs. Man Structurals Ltd.2001 (130) ELT 401 (S.C.).  Apex Court  held that the structural fabricated by a factory for use in its roofing amounts to manufacture.  Therefore, appellants had no obligation under law to disc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....90.  It is noticeable that till 1996, that industry was under the impression that the structural fabricated by them for their own use shall not amount to manufacture and not liable to duty.  Only after 19 years of the Tribunal's LB decision in the case of Mahendra & Mahendra, (supra) the position of law was made clear to them as to the exciseability of the structural fabricated for thei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to evade payment of duty. When the facts are known to both the parties, omission by one party to do what he might have done would not render it suppression. When the Revenue invokes the extended period of limitation under Section 11A the burden is cast upon it to prove suppression of fact. An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a willful misstatement. The latter implies making of an incor....