9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Arora, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Harish Chander, Vice President]. - By the present miscellaneous application the applicants have made a prayer for raising the following ground of appeal :- "(g) The demand is hit by the time bar prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act. While the show cause notice is dated 5-1-1989, the demand is for the period 1-1-1987 to 5-11-1988. In terms of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Ramdev Tobacco Company reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 631 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that a pure question of law can be entertained at appellate stage even if not raised before the lower court. 2A. Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, does not object to the raising of the same in view of the earlier d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the AAC, provided there is sufficient material on record to allow such a claim. The Assessee, for the first time, raised a plea in second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal that the expenditure incurred by the assessee before it went into commercial production was an admissible deduction for the purpose of S. 80J(1) of the I.T. Act. The revenue resisted the claim on the ground that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Collector of Central Excise v. Ramdev Tobacco Company reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 631 (SC). Para No. 10 from the said judgment is reproduced below :- "10. Mr. Nambiar, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly argued that we should not entertain the submission based on the ejusdem generis rule since it was not raised before the High Court. That indeed is true but being a pure questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
