9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate, for the Respondents. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - In this appeal, Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-original dated 24-1-1994 passed by the Collector vide which he had dropped his proceedings for recovery of the short-paid duty on the melting scrap, against the respondents. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of various items of st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contested correctness of the notice and maintained that there was no mis-declaration of the scrap by them and that they had correctly paid the duty on it. They also alleged that the duty demand was time barred. The Collector through impugned order, dropped the proceedings against the respondents on the ground that the Revenue had no case on merits and that the demand was time barred. 3. Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 11A of the Act could be invoked against them. 6. Admittedly, the respondents made clearances of the scrap by describing as re-rolling scrap under the approved classification lists. No objection was raised by the Excise Department at the time of clearances of the goods, regarding the mis-declaration of the scrap. The respondents also filed RT 12 returns and in the gate passes descr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 54/80. No allegations of fraud, collusion or intentional mis-declaration of the product had been attributed to the respondents. That being so, the demand for disputed period October, 1982 to April, 1983 on the basis of show cause notice dated 22.9.84 has been rightly held to be time barred by the Cellector. 8. It may also be mentioned that even the demand for November, 1981 to September, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
