9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-original dated 7-1-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned SDR on the issues involved in this appeal. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of yarn and man-made fabrics which they transport by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsurance charges for the period prior to 1-7-2001 was argued at length by both the sides. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that his case is squarely covered by earlier decisions of CEGAT in the case of Associated Strips Ltd. and Maurya Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 131 (Tri.) = 2002 (49) RLT 506 as well as in the case of Frexton Cables - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 694 (Tri.) = 2002 (49) RLT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned, we are convinced that there has been no suppression or mis-statement of facts by the appellants and they have intimated their marketing arrangements to the Department from time to time. As such, the extended time limit for raising demand prior to the period 1-7-2000 is not applicable and therefore, the demand for this period is clearly time barred. Hence, we quash the demand for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
