1998 (4) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Khandelwal Engineering Works against the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. 2. Shri Naveen Mallick arguing for the appellants submitted that the main issue to be considered in this case is whether the process of reshelling of rollers amounts to manufacture or not. Apart from merits of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce second notice was not a notice but only a corrigendum/amendment to the earlier show cause notice. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. Without going into the merits of the case, we find that there is a substantial force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of limitation. On going through the contents of the amended show cause notice dated 22-3-1990, it canno .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th this and, accordingly, hold that demand was barred by time. The appeal succeeds on limitation issue. Since we are allowing the appeal on the point of limitation, we do not feel it necessary to go into other points raised by both the sides. However, as regards penalty, we find that there was no mention of penalty either in the first show cause notice or in the second notice and, accordingly, pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X