9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation No. 223/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986, as amended during the period from 1-3-1988 to 20-7-1989. The Department was of the view that the woven sacks manufactured out of HDPE tubes or tubular fabrics which have in turn been manufactured on circular looms, will not be benefitted from the said Notification inasmuch as it will amount to manufacture of woven sacks on circular looms. The demand of duty for the period from 1-3-1988 to 20-7-1989 has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority for holding so. 2. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for appellants submits that the issue on merits has been decided against the assessee in the case of M/s. Chariot Cement Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be without jurisdiction. Thereafter, the notice dated 25-1-1991, impugned in the present appeal was issued by the Commissioner invoking the larger period of limitation i.e. for the period from 1-3-1988 to 20-7-1989. He submits that as the earlier show cause notice issued on 15-5-1989 for the period from 1-3-1988 to 26-4-1988, it cannot be said that the Department was not aware of the facts that HDPE sacks/bags were being manufactured by them from HDPE fabrics which were woven on circular looms. In the circumstances, he submits that applying the ratio of the Tribunal judgment in the case of Chariot Cement Company, the facts of which are similar to the facts of the present case, their appeal be allowed on the point of limitation. 4. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar declaration exists in the present appeal also. Apart from that, the Department had initiated action against the appellants in the year, 1989, on the same ground. As such, it cannot be said that the appellants suppressed anything from the Department so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. In this connection, we may also refer to the Tribunal decision reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 378 (Tribunal) = 1999 (31) RLT 607 (CEGAT) in the case of Khatao Makanji Spg. Wvg. Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. It has been held that where earlier show cause notice has been issued and adjudicated upon, the subsequent show cause notice on the same issue invoking the extended period of limitation, could not be justified and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
