2018 (8) TMI 1442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are directed against same Order-in-Original, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant nor there ia a request for any adjournment. It is noticed from the records that these appeals are coming up regularly for disposal and there is no representation from the assessee or whenever matters were listed, adjournment was sought few times. Since the appeal is of 2008 and issue seems to be in a narrow compass, we take up the appeals for disposal even in the absence of any representation from the assessee. 3. Heard the Learned Commissioner (AR). She brings to our notice the appeal filed by the department. It is her submission that the adjudicating authority in the Order in Original dated 04.09.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ELT 481 (SC)], M/s Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd [2010 TIOL 35 (SC) CT], Neminath Fabrics Pvt Ltd [2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj.)]. It is her submission that this ratio would apply in the case in hand as assessee in this case did not inform for the period in question about their activities of they being engaged in the fabrication of trusses at the site of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by the Learned Commissioner (AR) and on perusal of records, we find that the show cause notice dated 31.01.1990 is demanding Central Excise Duty and seeks to impose a penalty for the activity of fabrication of trusses at the site of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The adjudicating authority after considering all the record....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x court in the case of Nizam Sugars Ltd [2006 (19) ELT 465 (SC)] wherein Lordships have held that if already a show cause notice on the similar issue, adjudicated upon, the second show cause notice cannot invoke extended period for demand of duty. The decision is directly applicable in the case in hand as is correctly held by adjudicating authority. 7. In view of the foregoing, the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected and we do so. 8. As regards the appeal filed by the appellant, it is the case of the appellant that the show cause notice has not demanded any duty from them post August, 1989 and the original authority has confirmed the demands for the period of 6 months. In our view, even appeal ....