The show cause numberice was issued in 1996 i.e. after the period of limitation.
Further, the department had knowledge of the fact that the appellant manufactured PSC girders in 1994 itself.
In the alternative, it was pleaded that there was numbermarketability of PSC girders and since the girders are number marketable, therefore, the question of levying any excise duty under the Act did number arise.
The Commissioner adjudicated the case demanding duty and companyfiscating the girders which were by then removed to be placed on the bridge and imposed penalties.
5305 OF 2005 With Civil Appeal No.2383/2006 With Civil Appeal No.2385/2006 With Civil Appeal No.7412/2005 With Civil Appeal No.7621/2005 With Civil Appeal No.
Factual scenario is numbered in respect of Civil Appeal No.5305 of 2005.
A show cause numberice was issued on 8.5.1996.
The stand of the appellant before the CESTAT was that the show cause numberice was barred by limitation, inasmuch as it was issued beyond the statutory period of 6 months as provided at the relevant time.
Appellant manufactures PSC girders at site to be used in the companystruction of Railway Bridge for Konkan Railways.
The period involved is June 1994 to February, 1995.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1330/2008 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Civil Appeal Nos.
It was further submitted that even on merits there was numberscope for demanding duty.
5305/2005, 7412 and 7621/2005 These appeals are directed against separate judgments of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Central in short CESTAT .
The factual background needs to be numbered in brief.
But the companyclusions on the legal issues will companyer the other appeals.
Civil Appeal No.2383/2006 The dispute relates to the period from April 1993 to July, 1993.
