2018 (2) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, AC (AR), for the respondent. ORDER Per: Bench The brief facts of the case are as under:- i) The appellant is a small scale unit and manufacturers of steel fabricated items (M.S.Floor Grills) falling under chapter 73 of CETA 1985. The issue involved in the appeal is denial of exemption under notification 83/1994-CE dt. 11.4.1994. ii) The appellant had cleared the M.S.Grills for Ga....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 4,96,996/- and imposition of equal penalty. The Commissioner (Appeal) vide an order dated 24.8.2006 upheld the demand. v) Since the SCN and Order had been issued without territorial jurisdiction, CESTAT Chennai set aside the demand vide Final Order No.1139/2006 dt.30.11.2006. vi) Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, II Division, Trichy Commissionerate, issued a show Ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d SCN was issued on 26.03.2007 alleging suppression of facts and invoking extended period of limitation. He relies upon the ratio of the following case laws:- 1) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE, AP - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) 2) CCE, Vadodhara Vs. Sotex - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and....