TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, all the above stated 6(six) connected appeals are taken together for decision and as a result all the Miscellaneous Applications for early hearing have become infructuous. The above stated appeals are taken together for decision because the appellants are common and issue is same and the appeals are for different periods. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the process of hot deep galvanization of MS fabricated items falling under chapter 73 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Initially the appellant was having understanding that process of galvanization does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, they registered themselves with Central Excise department for payment of Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tors for job-work during April, 2007 to March, 2011. Through the said show cause notice appellants were called upon to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting ot Rs. 3,91,63,770/- for the period form 2007-08 to 2010-11 should not be collected from them on behalf of M/s.Advance Steel Tubes Ltd., Hardwar. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through impugned order-in-original dated 23.05.2013 wherein the duty was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed on the appellant. Further a personal penalty of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs was imposed on Shri Arvind Bansal, Partner. Aggrieved by the said order, both the appellants are before this Tribunal. For subsequent period covering period of 2011-12 to 2012-13 another show cause notice was issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed upon Shri Arvind Bansal. Aggrieved by the said order both the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of appeal include the contention of appellant that the show cause notice dated 02.04.2012 is hit by limitation. In the grounds of appeal they have submitted that the issue of galvanization was within the knowledge of department and they had obtained Service Tax registration from the department and at the beginning they were paying Service Tax on the job charges received in certain cases. The grounds further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in several decisions that where a bona fide doubt as to the non-excisibility of the goods existed due to a conflict of decision between different High Courts, the extended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.)] and argued that when the first show cause notice was issued by invoking extended period of limitation as ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar, the subsequent show cause notice if issued by invoking extended period of limitation then such show cause notice is not sustainable. He, therefore, argued that show cause notice dated 28.02.2013 is not sustainable. Further he argued that show cause notice dated 24.01.2014 was issued by invoking sub-section (4) of section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 where the show cause notice can be issued only if the duty was evaded by reason of fraud, collusion, any willful statement or contravention ....