9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Abhijit Biswas, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Being aggrieved wth the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the respondent s appeal on the point of limitaton, Revenue has filed the present appeals. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents conducted their own annual stock taking for the years 1986-87 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals with consequential relief. 3. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue has strongly contested the above findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Relying upon the Hon ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Carborundum Universal Limited v. Union of India - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 403 (Mad.), he submits that Section 11A and Rule 223A are dealing with different situation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Rourkela Steel Plant v. C.C.E., Bhubaneswar - 2000 (40) RLT 838 (CEGAT) wherein while taking note of the earlier decision of the Tribunal it was held that the demand for shortages found during stock verification has to be issued within period of six months from the date of intimation of the shortages. As such he submits that the issue havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Tribunal s decision in the case of Tamil Nadu Steels Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh - [2001 (130) E.L.T. 268 (T) = 2001 (42) RLT 556] holding that the demand raised under Rule 196 is not barred by limitation as laid down under Section 11A. As against the above decisions, the decision in the case of Laxmi Tobacco v. C.C.E., Raipur - [2000 (125) E.L.T. 1105 (T) = 2000 (39) RLT 834] is to the effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
