TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-in-original No. BVR-EXCUS-000-COM-24-18-19 dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Bhavnagar whereby he has set aside the proceedings initiated by the department against the respondents vide show cause notice dated 31.10.2014 by which the total excise duty demand of Rs.2,41,02,864/- was proposed along with proposal for imposition of penalty and interest. 2. Facts in brief are that Respondents are engaged in import of Sodium Trio Poly Phosphate (hereinafter referred to as "STTP" for the sake of brevity) in 1000/1500 kgs. FIBC (Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers) from Pipavav Port and subsequently selling the same in domestic market after carrying out process of re-packing of bulk packages of imported....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Ardor International Pvt. Limited (AIPL) were packed in 50 Kg. bags and cleared without payment of excise duty. Rs.1,77,114 448 On the basis of one parallel invoice it is contended that 22.390 MT of STTP was cleared to Fact Trading Co. after repacking without payment of duty. Rs.1,48,655 460 On the basis of presumption that 460 bags of STIP was cleared to AIPL after repacking without payment of duty. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the detailed reply filed by the assessee and hearing, dropped the demand both on merit as well as on limitation. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-original, the Revenue preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri Prabhat K. Rameshwaram, learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o on limitation. However, the Revenue in its appeal has not made out any ground on limitation therefore, even if any doubt about dropping of the demand on merit, the demand is otherwise not maintainable as the order of dropping the demand on limitation has attained finality in the absence of any ground in the ground of appeal in the present appeal. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) CCE vs. Indofil Chemical Company - 2001 (45) RLT 1068 (b) CCE vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited - 2001 (43) RLT 514 (c) CCE vs. Saharia Krishi AN Prathistan - 2003 (58) RLT 308 (d) CCE vs. Spade Elektro (P) Ltd. 2004 (175) ELT 319 (T) (e) CCE v. Saakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (308) ELT 655 (Guj.) (Affirmed by Supreme Court in 2015 (319) E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Tri.) (x) CCE, Raipur vs. Ravi Vaswani - 2017 (347) ELT 351 (Tri.) (y) Navdeep Engineering vs. CCE, Thane - 2014 (313) ELT 268 (Tri.) (z) CCE, Haldia vs. Lord's Chemicals Limited - 2009 (245) ELT 695 (Tri.) (za) Eupec Welspun Coatings India Ltd. vs. CCE - 2009 (235) ELT 347 (Tri.) (Affirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at -2010 (260) ELT 381) (zb) P.R. Industries v. CCE, Delhi - 1 - 2016 (344) ELT 234 (Tri.) (zc) T.T.K. Pharma Limited vs. CCE, Chennai -2005 (189) ELT 239 (Tri.) (zd) Arvind Agrawal vs. CCE, Delhi 2005 (179) ELT 570 (Tri.) (ze) Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited vs. CCE - 2002 (147) ELT 616 (Tri.) (zf) V.P. Packaging v. CCE, Calcutta - 2001 (137) ELT 583 (Tri.) 6. On careful consideration of the....