TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....behalf of the appellant Ld. Advocate Shri. S. Durairaj reiterates the grounds brought out in the application and also made a number of submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : (i) The period involved in the present case is from 01.05.2006 to 31.10.2009. The Show Cause Notice had been issued only on 25.11.2010. Hence, the entire demand is beyond the normal period of one year; (ii) Paragraph 2.1 of the Show Cause Notice would reveal that the appellant had sold the goods under proper documents and were paying sales tax. So also, their entire transactions were reflected in their financial records; (iii) During the period of dispute, there was a lot of confusion on the issue. The appellant had therefore cleared the goods without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been established that they had suppressed the facts with an intention to evade payment of duty. 4. In response, Ld. Advocate points out that the power to recall an order is very much an inherent power of the Tribunal. He draws our attention to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ram Kirpal (supra) and the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on which he has already placed reliance. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 6. The main plank of the ROM application is that although the issue of invocation of extended period of limitation was raised, the same had not been considered in the impugned Order. 7.1 On going through the Order, we f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufactured by converting/processing the soap sludge. 7.4 Arriving thus at this manner of upholding of the duty liability demanded for extended period of limitation, the Tribunal however took a more benign view of the penalty. In paragraph 6 of the impugned Order, it was noted that the excisability of by-product/waste arising in such refining of vegetable oils was mired in confusion till the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Ricela Health Foods Ltd. (supra). For this reason only, the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was set aside. 8. We are therefore of the considered opinion that in view of the discussions that led to the upholding of the impugned demand liability on acid oil, the Bench has not found any merit in the plea of....