9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the Commissioner held that the demand is within the period and not barred by the limitation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and are availing the benefit of Modvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant is that the show cause notice was served upon them beyond the normal period of limitation. Therefore, whole demand is time-bar. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the credit was taken in respect of the capital goods in question, on or after 1-8-94 and the show cause notice was served upon by the appellants on 12-1-95. Therefore, the demand is within the normal period of lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d within six months from the date of such credit and in the present case the notice was served on the appellants on 12-1-95. In these circumstances we find the show cause notice in the present case was served within six months from taking of the credit by the appellant. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
