TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S. Bagaria, Advocate Shri I. Banerjee, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Subrata Debnath, Authorized Representative for the Respondent-Revenue ORDER ORDER : [ PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL ] As in all the appeals, the issue is common and are arising out of a common order, therefore, all are disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant nos. 1 (viz. M/s. Vardhaman Products) and 2 (M/s. Atishay Pure Products) are the manufacturers of excisable products viz. "Pan Masala" (without Tobacco), "Churna for Pan" i.e., Mouth Fresheners and "Sweet Supari", which they have been manufacturing the above mentioned products since 30th November, 2006 and 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants contested the issues, but the ld. adjudicating authority held against them and demanded duty from the appellants and imposed penalties on all the appellants vide the impugned order. 3.1. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that on merits, they have no case. 4.1. However, on limitation, he submitted that the period involved is from 2007-08 to 2009-10 and the instant Show Cause Notice has been issued on 30th January, 2012 by invoking the extended period of limitation. As appellants were availing the benefit of concessional Notification No. 32/99-C.E. dated 08.07.1999 (Area Based Exemption Notification), wherein whatever duty is paid through PLA,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.1-3. 7. We find that in this case, the appellants have admitted that they have no case on merits, but they are contesting the issue on limitation on the ground that periodical refunds of duty paid under Section 4A have been sanctioned in terms of Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, which were never challenged and had attained finality. We find that, as held in the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong v. Jellalpore Tea Estate, 2011 (268) ELT 14 (Gau.), the Revenue could not have raised the demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without challenging the refund sanctioning orders. 7.1. Further, we find that a clarification was sought from the Department before commencement of production, which was....