- (1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act") by revenue against the order dated 27-12-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, proposing following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the respondent firm is liable to pay Central Excise duty under the circumstances without being registered with the deptt., not making payment of duty and working without license? (ii) Whether the act and conduct of the respondent firm tantamount to suppression of facts from the department? (iii) Whether the extended period of five years as envisaged under Section 11A of Central Excise Act is invokable?
(2.) The revenue raised demand of duty in regard to steel structures and part thereof got fabricated by the assessee on job work, in terms of the contracts. Demand was raised beyond the period of limitation specified under Section 11A of the Act, though within the extended period of limitation, applicable in a circumstance where the assessee is guilty of wilful suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty.
(3.) The assessee claimed that in the process of execution of civil contract, manufacture of excisable goods was not involved.;