2018 (3) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing out unnecessary details, are that during the period 11.04.2002 to 28.02.2003, appellant herein removed electronic items intended to Indian Navy, claiming the benefit of notification No. 64/95-C, dated 16.03.1995.  Revenue authorities were of the view that these goods which are cleared by appellant claiming the benefit of notification No. 64/95-C cannot be considered as ship builders as the goods were used for construction of ships by Indian Navy.  Show Cause Notice dated 16.10.2003 was issued demanding the duty for the period involved, by invoking the extended period.  In the first round of litigation, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated by Order-in-Original No. 70/2003-Commr. Dt. 30.12.2003, whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the supplies made to the Indian Navy;  that the demands which have been raised by invoking extended period is incorrect as Revenue authorities were issuing periodical notices on the same issue and the adjudicating authority has not dropped the proceedings under section 11 AC which was confirmed.  It is also his submission that the demands confirmed by invoking extended period are not sustainable. 7. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that they are aware of the fact that they are not eligible the benefit under Notification 64/95-C;  should have themselves discharged the duty liability and they were aware that the goods were used on the ship which is yet to be constructed.  It is hi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....said order, we hold that the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-C is not available to them, and claim to the same is rejected. 9. The impugned order has followed the directions given by the Tribunal as to the extending the benefit of modvat credit to the appellants. 10. The question of  limitation as raised by Ld. Counsel needs consideration by this Bench.  It is seen from the impugned order that the adjudicating authority in remand proceedings in para 8, has dropped the penalties, holding that this is not a case of imposing mandatory penalty under section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.  On perusal of show cause notice that has been issued to the appellant, we notice that in para No. 12 of the Show Cause Notice, reve....