9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r favour by the persons who had received the goods initially from the manufacturer thereof and who had sold the same to the appellants. After appellants had replied to the show cause notice, the Assistant Collector dropped the demand amounting to Rs. 1,33,191.69 but confirmed it for Rs. 45,435.33. The latter decision was taken by him on the ground that gate passes had two endorsements which was held to be not permissible at the material time. He overruled the contention raised about the notice being barred by limitation holding that Rule 57-I before its amendment vide Notification No. 28/88, dated 6-10-1988 authorised the proper officer to issue show cause notice for period exceeding six months also. The Department did not agree with the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The non-disposal of the cross objection in regard to the other sum of Rs. 45,435.33 was also pointed out by the learned counsel. In conclusion, it was submitted by her that in any case show cause notice issued on 18-8-1988 was clearly time barred for most of the period involved in the present case and the departmental authorities were in error in holding that the notice issued for the period six months prior to 18-8-1988 was not hit by limitation. 3. It was stated in reply by Shri D.K. Nayyar, learned Departmental Representative, that in view of the approach taken by the Department in regard to endorsements and the Tribunal decision in regard to the acceptability of endorsements made subsequently in the gate passes, he would only submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntemporaneous record maintained by the appellant, this objection would stand overruled. In any case, the application of the extended period of limitation on the ground that the Superintendent was competent to issue notice for demand of duty after disallowing of credit even for a period beyond six months would not stand in view of the Larger Bench decision in Brakes India Limited v. CCE, Madras reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 434 (Tri.) = 1996 (15) RLT 68. The appellant is entitled to succeed on this ground as far as the demand for the period beyond six months is concerned. As, however, certain part of the demand relates to the period within six months, the matter has to be decided on merits. This would necessitate remand of the matter to the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
