2018 (11) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are aggrieved with the Final Order of this Tribunal No. 50792-50794/2018 in Appeal No. 51339-51341/2017, due to defects on face of record. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant/applicant states that they had taken the ground before this Tribunal of limitation, that the extended period of limitation is not applicable. We find that such ground has been recorded by this Tribunal in para 4 (vi) of the order. However, we find that in the operative part of the order there is no discussion on the applicability of the extended period, neither there is any categorical rejection of such ground. We further find that the Tribunal have recorded that there is no malfide on the part of the appellants and is a simple case of classification dispute as it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was raised by the assessee at the outset but not decided by the Tribunal while rendering its judgment on appeal. If that be so, the only question which remains to be decided is, whether while entertaining such a contention the Tribunal committed any legal error? Here also, we do not find any force in the contention of the Revenue. As asserted by the assessee and held by the Tribunal, the assessee had made all necessary declarations and, clearances were made with concurrence of the Department. There was no misdeclaration or a willful misstatement with a view to avoiding duty. The invocation of extended period of limitation, therefore, was rightly held not permissible. Tax Appeal is therefore, dismissed. b. For limitation- Ground not deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that in para 11 of the final order of this Tribunal it has been observed that in the course of the investigation the statement of Mr. Vijay Singhvi, Factory Manager, Authorized Signatory was recorded and he admitted in his statement that all components required for the green houses are transported to the designated sites in ready to assemble condition. Further, the Department has established that the appellants have deliberately issued invoices for supply in two parts, one for the items fabricated in the factory and the other for the bought out items (Commercial Invoice). The Ld. AR have also relied on the case laws CCE Jaipur V/s Rajasthan Foils Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No. E/ROA/50747/2017 in Excise Appeal No. 799/2012 wherein it has been held....