TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the issue involved also is the same except that the period in question and the amount of duty demanded is different in each of these appeals. The requisite details of each appeal are tabulated below : Appeal No. Show Cause Notice Order-in- Original Amount of duty confirmed Period Name of resin E/50011/2022 11266- 11268 dated 27.09.2007 9-13/2020 dated 21.09.2020 Rs.5,88,770/- September 2006 to December 2006 Oleoresin E/50012/2022 7527-29 dated 27.05.2013 9-13/2020 dated 21.09.2020 Rs. 10,05,740/- June 2012 to October 2012 Resin E/50013/2022 15235- 5237 dated 02.12.2013 9-13/2020 dated 21.09.2020 Rs.17,73,280/- November 2012 to August 2013 Resin (Lisa) E/50014/2022 12345-46 dated 18.11.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iate penalties as tabulated above. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the Order-in-Original No. 9-13/2020 dated 21.09.2020. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal by way of aforementioned five appeals. 3. We have heard Shri Siddharth Sangal, Ms. Richi Mishra and Ms. Richa Sharma, learned Advocates for the appellant and Shri Rajesh Jain, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 4. Learned counsel has submitted that the issue of collection of excise duty by the appellants while clearing the resins was under adjudication since the year 2006 till the year 2020. The initial order of asserting the levy of central excise duty on resins (order dated 18.09.2006) was stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tainable. The order accordingly is prayed to be set aside and appeals are prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has impressed upon no infirmity in the order under challenge. The findings in Para 4.5 of the order under challenge are relied upon wherein it has been appreciated that before the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court itself the appellant vide its affidavit has acknowledged the liability of forest department to pay excise duty on the clearance of the forest resins and that the same is statutory in nature. With these submissions, appeals are prayed to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the entire records, we observe following as the apparent facts: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... During this period, the excise department continued to issue show cause notices at regular intervals resulting into impugned five show cause notices. 6.2 The Division Bench of Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court dated 10.07.2019 allowed the special appeals filed by the department holding that central excise duty is payable on extraction of raw pine resin. These particular facts makes it abundantly clear that initially in the Year 2006 as per appellant's own notification, the payment of excise duty on clearance of resins was exempted. It remained exempted till 28.02.2006. The notification withdrawing the said exemption of March 2006 was challenged in May 2006 itself. Though the Writ Petition of the buyers (M/s. Sud Pines) of resins was dismisse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon the show cause notices due to the ongoing litigation with respect to the impugned issue resulting into a late decision with respect to these show cause notices. The show cause notices as old as of the Year 2007, 2008, 2013 and 2014 got decided by the impugned order dated 21.09.2020. As per the statutory mandate, the central excise officer has to determine the amount of duty within 6 months of issuing a show cause notice in terms of Section 11A(11) of Central Excise Act. The adjudication in the present case, apparently is beyond several years. The show cause notices are not sustainable on this ground itself. I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Hayana in the case of M/s. Mentha & Alled Products Ltd Vs. Co....