9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri S.S. Bhagat, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. The issue involved herein is whether the appellants herein are two separate units or one combined unit and whether the individual clearances could be denied and duties determined along with the penalty as arrived at by the lower authorities especially in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of evasion if any taking place and if they did not take any action, they cannot hide behind the excuse of non-compliance with their direction by the assessee and relying the case of Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad 2004 (165) E.L.T. 494 (S.C.) as made by the Advocate for the appellants, we would consider that the demands are prima facie barred by limitation. We are reinforced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Apex Court clearly records that Appeal No. 2747 of 2001 filed by Nizam Sugar Factory arises out of Order No. 326/2000, dated 19-7-2000 and arising out of Order-in-Appeal E/801/89C. The Larger Bench order also arises out of appeal E/801/89C and hence it can be concluded that the Supreme Court in Nizam Sugar Factory - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) has overruled the decision of the Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
