2006 (2) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lant. Shri Venkateswara Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. This is a Revenue appeal. The Revenue is aggrieved with Order-in-Appeal No. 16 and 42/04-CE dated 26-2-2004. The Commissioner (A) has noted that the demands cannot be confirmed as the demands are barred by time. He has noted that the assessee neither mis-stated nor suppressed any materia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue in depth and held that the demands are not raised within time. He had also noted that there is no allegation of suppression of any material information or mis-statement or fraud. He has applied the ratio of the Tribunal s ruling in the case of Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 662 (Tri.). The order is legal and proper. Furthermore, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X