9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. Shri K. Sambi Reddi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This is a second round of litigation. The Tribunal had remanded the matter for de novo by its order No. 1020/2006 dated 8-6-2006 with regard to the clearance of modvated inputs, where a duty demand of Rs. 2,86,168/- was raised by show cause notice dated 22-3-2002 pertaining to clearances made in the year 1998-99. The show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by this Bench in the case of Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (SRSL) v. CCE, Bangalore - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 385 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein it was noted that while investigation was done in 2002 and show cause notice was issued in 2005, after an inordinate delay of 800 days, then the demands are required to held as time barred. This Bench again in the case of CCE v. Manuelsons Wood Industries - 2007 (210) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued after lapse of six months on 22-3-2002 would be time barred. 3. The learned JDR submitted that later investigations were done which showed the suppression of facts and true facts were not disclosed and hence, larger period was invokable. He distinguished the judgments cited before the Bench. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions without going into the merits of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese replacements. They had appended the copies of the invoices to their letter in this regard and had paid the duty of Rs. 11,93,210/-. The department ought to have taken steps to investigate on this and also with regard to the details furnished about the movement of inputs in the said letter in Statement-II, which has not been done for a long period of time and the investigation was done after la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l period. There was no suppression of facts for invoking larger period. Therefore, the demands are hit by time bar. The citations referred to by the learned Counsel also support their plea pertaining to the demands being time barred in view of the findings given. The confirmation of demands on the removal of inputs in 1998-99 by show cause notice dated 22-3-2002 is deemed to be time bar and hit by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
