9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, President]. The applicant has challenged the order of the Commissioner demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 1,05,97,800.04 (Rupees one crore five lac ninety seven thousand eight hundred and paise four only) and imposing penalty of the like amount. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the communication sent by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata. 3. None of these communications apparently mitigate the nature of the rebate contemplated by the notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules. Rule 12 contemplates that the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, grant rebate of duty paid on the excisable goods and duty paid on materials used in the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve not been complied with. 3.1 The notification in question was issued on 9-9-1967 and was amended from time to time. The last amendment being with effect from 28-2-1986. By this notification a copy of which is on record at Annexure A , it was, inter alia, provided that in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 12 of the said rules, the Government directed that rebate of excise duty paid on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 4. It was further contented by the learned Counsel that a part of the demand was barred by limitation inasmuch as in respect of the period from March, 1994 to November 1996, show cause notice was issued on 18-8-1997 for recovery of Rs. 37,59,747.89. The question whether there was suppression of facts will be examined at the final hearing stage. 4.1 Having regard to the facts and circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
