1999 (5) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 31-34/BBSR/De novo/89, dated 17-2-1989. We find that the impugned Order disposes of four appeals. The Revenue had filed four appeals against the above Order out of which three have already been disposed of by the Tribunal, vide its Order Nos. 675-677/98-Calcutta, dated 29-6-1998 being Appeal Nos. E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. 3. Shri K.N. Jena, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents relies upon the above referred Order of the Tribunal vide which three appeals filed by the Department against the same impugned Order were rejected. 4. We have considered the submissions from both sides. We find that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) impugne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Tribunal s Order that there was only a mere allegation of suppression of facts in the show cause notice without any details as to how the respondents have suppressed the information from the department. As the three earlier appeals filed by the Revenue against the same Order-in-Appeal Nos. 31-34/BBSR/De novo/89, dated 17-2-1989, had been rejected, we do not find any justifiable reason to take a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X