9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rajesh Chandra Kumar appearing for the appellants submitted that he was instructed by the appellants to challenge only the question of time bar issue. In this context he referred to the reply given by the party to the show cause notice. Particularly he drew my attention to the relevant portion of the reply which is as under : At the outset, the demand has been made for a period of five a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciples has been laid down by Apex Court in the case of Collector v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments 1989 (40) E.L.T 276. Further, in the case of Collector v. Modi Arc Electrodes Company, 1988 (35) E.L.T 356, the Tribunal has held that extended period of 5 years is not invocable by the department on the plea that assessee was aware of the mistake, hence his failure to bring the mistake to the notice o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He said that the issue of time bar has been taken up by the party before the adjudicating authority also and the same was not properly appreciated as can be seen from the impugned order. The adjudicating authority rejected the time bar issue on the ground that Shri Elango, Asst. Manager (Excise Customs) of the Appellant-Company has admitted that the entry made is wrong and that the quantity re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey have received on conversion. In view of this, the adjudicating authority was right in arriving at the conclusion that addition was not disclosed to the Department and accordingly it a clear case of suppression of facts. He justified the action of the department on the plea of time bar and accordingly he said that show cause notice was issued within the time. He also said that the period relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
