1998 (1) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. Two issues arise for determination in the above appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 20-9-1989 of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. (1) Whether the respondents herein who are regenerating liquid milk out of skimmed milk powder received by them and using the liquid milk further in the manufacture of ice creams, are entitled to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. HMM Ltd. reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 436 (Tribunal) = 1993 (47) ECR 443. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we hold that the benefit of the Notification is not available to the respondents herein. However, on the issue of limitation, we agree with the learned Consultant that even in the case of a demand under Rule 196 (in the case of persons follo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icating authority that the demand is barred by limitation. Since the entire period falls beyond a period of six months, the demand in this case cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 4. In the result, while holding that the benefit of Notification 38/78 is not available to the respondents herein, the demand in the present case falls to the ground as it is barred by limitation. 5. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X