TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner (Appeals) in which he dropped the demands on the respondents for extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [Act] and penalties under section 11AC of the Act. The details of the two orders are as follows: Sonex Marble Pvt Ltd. Sonex Marmo Grami Pvt Ltd. Show Cause Notice 06.04.2018 06.04.2018 Period of dispute 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2016 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2016 Order-in-Original 28.02.2019 28.02.2019 Order-in-Appeal 15.05.2019 09.05.2019 CESTAT Final Order 18.05.2023 18.05.2023 Order-in-Original 18.04.2023 12.09.2023 Impugned Order-in-Appeal 29.07.2024 30.07.2024 Amount of duty dropped Excise Duty of Rs. 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g extended periods of limitation along with interest under section 11AA of the Act and further proposing to impose penalties under section 11AC of the Act. 5. In the first round of litigation, the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demands but they were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal by the Revenue, this Tribunal, by Final Order dated 18.5.2023, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority as follows: " 20. In view of our aforementioned observations and findings, we allow the appeals of revenue by way of remand to the original Adjudicating Authority with the following directions: i) To calculate the quantum of marble slabs cleared on job work basis as per the formula prescribed in the tari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the dropping of demand for the extended period of limitation by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the cross objections, the respondents are supporting the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Therefore, the limited question which needs to be answered by us in these two appeals is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly set aside the demands for extended period of limitation under section 11A(4) of the Act and penalties under section 11AC. Submissions on behalf of the Revenue 9. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue asserted that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dropping the demand for extended period of limitation on the following grounds: i) There is no dispute regarding the liability of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehalf of the Respondents 10. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supported the impugned orders and submitted as follows: i) No evidence has been adduced by the department to prove that the duty has not been paid by reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of duty. ii) The onus to prove the ingredients for invoking extended period of limitation under section 11A(4) rests on the department. iii) The respondents were under the bonafide belief that as job workers they were not liable to pay duty and it must be paid by the principal. iv) Therefore, extended period of limitation was correctly n....