9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants by this appeal have agitated the demand on the ground that it is time barred. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The appellants sought permission from the department for transfer of their cotton yarns to 5 units for the purpose of converting into hanks. The Assistant Collector permitted the appellants to remo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned Counsel submitted while seeking permission of the Assistant Collector the appellants had given licence number and name of the 5 units to whom the cotton yarn was to be transferred. He submitted that Rule 96E provides that procedure laid down in Rules 153, 156A and 156B shall be followed. He submitted that before granting permission certain enquiries were required to be conducted and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation. The ld. Counsel submitted that the show cause notice was issued on 24-10-1986 and the demand pertains to a period 12-10-1984 to 29-10-1986. Therefore part of the demand was clearly hit by limitation as it was beyond the period of six months. The learned Counsel therefore prayed that to the extent the demand is hit by limitation their prayer for quashing the demand may be accepted. 4. Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the department. He therefore prays that the impugned order may be upheld. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides. We observe that under Rule 96E there is procedure laid down which is required to be followed by anyone who wants to avail benefit of that rule. Under this rule a permission is required to be obtained before sending cotton yarn for converting cotton yarn into hanks. Admittedly in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermission. 6. Having regard to the above discussions and admittedly having found that the 5 units were non-power operated we hold that demand beyond the period of six months is hit by limitation. In this view of the matter we modify the impugned order and restrict the demand to six months. But for the above modification the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
