IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Central Excise Appeal No.2 of 2006 Commissioner of Central Excise … Appellant Versus M/s Lord Vishwakarma Heat Exchanger & another … Respondents Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the appellant Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the respondents Dated: July 11, 2011 Coram Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merit of the matter. During the assessment years 1994-1995 to 1998-1999, the respondent/ assessee carried out various repair works. Concurrent findings of the facts, right from the order of the Assessment Officer up to the order of Tribunal, suggest that the Revenue was aware of the nature of repair work undertaken by the respondent/assessee, and that all the work of repair had been undertaken by the respondent/assessee only after obtaining permission of the Revenue. For the purpose of effecting such repair, the respondent/assessee manufactured ‘Fin Tubes’ and ‘Bend Tubes’ and used the same in the Air Coolers, repair work whereof had been undertaken by the respondent/assessee, by replacing the old and worn out. The demand, made for duty thereon was resisted, inasmuch as, the same was beyond one year. In order to apply proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it was held by the Assessing Officer that though the nature of work was known to the Revenue but the fact that ‘Fin Tubes’ and ‘Bend Tubes’, manufactured by the respondent/assessee, were being used for repair of the Air Coolers, was not known. At the same time, there was no dispute that reversal of credit taken on inputs {Pipes} was being done concurrently under MODVAT. In that background, the Tribunal held that the Revenue was 2 aware of the nature of work being carried out as well as inputs, as were being used, at the time when the repair works were being carried out and, accordingly, the demand under Section 11-A of the Act could only be raised within one year from the date of removal and not within the extended period, as is permissible under proviso to the said Section. The matter, having been decided on facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. We, accordingly dispose of the appeal without any interference. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 11.07.2011 Rdang