2019 (1) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 25.02.15 29-33/2014-15 dated 25.03.15 SCNs dated 04.02.04 30.12.14 23.12.05 & 29.11.06 03.07.07, 28.01.08, 24.09.08, 23.03.09 & 14.12.09 Period of dispute April 1998 to December 2003 January 2004 to November 2004 December 2004 to September 2006 October 2006 to September 2009 Duty demand Rs.2,22,62,155/- Rs.86,79,187/- Rs.1,71,02,273/- Rs.59,20,856/- Cenvat credit allowed Rs.67,84,317/- Rs.12,77,903/- Rs.48,55,524/- Rs.9,17,624/- Issue The main issue relates to whether the activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture or not. Further, the issue also relates to the classification of goods in question and invocation of extended period of limitation. The issue involved being common for all these Appeals, hence ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said frames. The said activity is denied to be manufacture. In alternative, it is mentioned that otherwise also, the impugned goods is the one as is classifiable under Chapter 4901 where the excise duty is nil. Ld. Counsel also brought to the notice about the previous order of Tribunal in the case C.C.E, Delhi Vs. Taneja Mines Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (257) ELT 471 wherein the impugned activity has been held as manufacture. The products in hand are held to have been excisable. Being aggrieved, Appeal was referred to Hon'ble Apex Court against the said decision. It is mentioned that same stands admitted vide the order dated 18.04.2011. The status till date is mentioned to be pending. The present four Appeals are therefore prayed to be adjourned sine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vinity. (ii) Desktop clocks. (iii) Other gift articles 9. Initially a SCN dated 04.02.2004 for April 1998 to December 2003 alleging the processing/trading activity of appellant as manufacture under section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and a subsequent notice dated 30.12.2004 for the subsequent period January 2004 to November 2004 were issued. Both of these SCNs were adjudicated vide a common Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2005 confirming the activity to be that of manufacture for framed pictures and Desktop cloks (as above). However, framed pictures were classified under 4901 will NIL duty. Thus, demand thereof was dropped and demand of Rs. 1,23,774/- only was confirmed with penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Still being aggrieved, appeal befo....