2000 (9) TMI 778

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The demand of duty has been challenged on the ground of limitation. Duty of Rs. 7,07,945.67 has been confirmed for the period 1-8-91 to 21-2-92 by issuing show cause notice on 28-8-96. 2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. consultant submits that during the relevant period, the applicants filed two classification lists declaring block board under Sub-h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion will not apply. 3. We have heard Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR, who draws our attention to the allegations made in the show cause notice as regards misdeclaration of the goods. 4. After giving our careful consideration to the arguments advanced from both the sides we find that during the relevant period, classification of the block boards was in favour of the appellants by various decisions of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not arise from the date of original adverse order is passed, but from the date of the order of the higher authorities, where the statutory reliefs, such as, appeal, revision or representation is provided. In the present case, the classification of block board has been decided by the Supreme Court in their order as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23. Therefore, the cause of action arose only from the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X