9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri S.J. Vyas, ld. Advocate and Shri K.J. Sanchis, JDR, we find that the demand raised against the appellant on the ground of valuation was dropped by the Asst. Commissioner vide his order dt. 27-2-1998, by observing that the duty paid by the appellant by adopting the assessable va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27-2-1998. The review order in terms of the provisions of Section 35E was passed by the Commissioner on 3-3-1999 i.e. after one year from the date of passing of the order. Hence it has been contended that the same is barred by limitation. 3. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of CE v. M.M. Rubber Co. [1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.)] has considered the relevant date for the purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In terms of the above decision by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the period of limitation will start running from the date of the order i.e. 27-2-1998. As such, the last date for reviewing the said order expired on or around 27-2-1999 whereas the Commissioner s order of review was made on 3-3-1999. As such the same is behind the period of limitation of one year and hence barred. 5. On the above s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
