2009 (5) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dvocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The respondents herein, who are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, cleared their entire production during the period October 1996 to June 2000 on stock transfer basis to depot at Tiruppur and to their consignment agents for sales and for other disposal. The final sale of yarn was effected from the depot at Tir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that the demand for the period October 1996 to 16-3-2000 was barred by limitation and restricted the demand for the period from 17-3-2000 to 30-6-2000 which worked out to Rs. 2,45,563/- and he also reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. It is the case of the department that assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iew that the value adopted by the assessees for clearances to job worker was much lesser than the value adopted for sales made from depot to other customers, show-cause notice alleging undervaluation and proposing to recover differential duty should have been issued within the normal period of limitation. We, therefore, agree with the finding in the impugned order that the extended period of limit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X