TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of furniture. The case was booked against the appellants for non-payment of excise duty on the fixed as well as loose furniture manufactured by the appellants at the site of their client. The show-cause notice was issued demanding excise duty to the tune of Rs. 8,34,855/-. The adjudicating authority confirme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 16.03.2007 the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order dated 13.1.2010 upheld the demand of Rs. 1,90,720/- and dropped the demand of balance amount of Rs. 3,696/-. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.01.2010, the appellants filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Rajeev Waglay, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the ld. Commissioner (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand is time barred. He further submits that it can be seen from the entire proceedings that the matter travelled second time to this Tribunal mainly on the ground that whether the furniture is dutiable or not. If at all it is dutiable, which type of furniture is covered under the ambit of excise liability. It is also fact that against the initial demand of Rs. 8,34,855/- after second round, the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., of the view that the demand is not sustainable on the ground that the appellants are entitled for SSI exemption. I find force in the argument of the ld. counsel that in the facts of the entire proceeding when the demand was raised for Rs. 8,34,855/- after various stages it stands reduced to Rs. 1,94,416/- on the ground that certain furnitures were found to be not excisable goods. In such circums....