9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium/Magnesium Strips, unmachined parts, aluminium circles, ingots, etc., for the manufacture of aluminium magnesium strips. They were procuring aluminium scrap from the Government of India Mint at Hyderabad and Calcutta and were availing themselves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegation of fraud, collusion, mis-statement or suppression. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of Kaur and Singh v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) as also in the case of Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills v. Union of India reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 24 held that since there are a number of ingredients requiring invokation of a longer period and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, prays that on the limitation ground alone the appeal may be allowed. 3. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR submits that there was a Notification No. 182/84-C.E., dated 1-8-1984 available on scrap of aluminium. He submits that this was a conditional Notification and that the appellants did not disclose that they were availing the benefit of Notification No. 182/84. The ld. SDR also submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the Department. We also note that RT 12 returns for the relevant period was finally assessed. We also find that there is no allegation of suppression, mis-statement, fraud, etc. No doubt, there is a reference about contravention of Rule 57G(2). Now whether this reference of Rule 57G(2) was lieu of the compliance of the proviso to Section 11A. We note that Rule 57G(2) Proviso says that the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
