9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. We have heard Shri M.M. Mathkar, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri P.M. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of various products including plastic and aluminium car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound favoured with by the adjudicating authority, who held the classification of the accessories in accordance with the proposal given by the assessee and directed that demand be accordingly confirmed. However, he rejected the assessee s claim for benefit of Modvat credit on the ground that no declarations under the said chapters were made by them. 2. On appeal against the above order, Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side. Revenue is only aggrieved by the findings of the Collector (Appeals) which are to the effect that the limitation of six months for demand of differential duty would be reckoned from 17-2-1994. It is their contention that all the show cause notices were issued within the limitation period of six months under Section 11A to modify the classification list and as such, the differential duty for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 11A. Inasmuch as all the show cause notices were issued within the period of six months in terms of Section 11A, there is no justification to count the limitation from the date of the order of the Assistant Collector. We accordingly, set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) to that extent. However, his order on availability of Modvat credit stands confirmed inasmuch as the Revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
