9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appellant. - E/3212-3213/2004 - A/1982-1983/2008-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 4-9-2008 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of screen emulsions and screen auxiliaries falling under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oreign manufacturer is affixed stands decided against them by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 (Tri.). However, he submits that as the entire demand having been raised against the appellants is beyond the normal period of limitation, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the said ground itself. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat such use would not result in denial of the benefit of Notification. As such, they cannot be held guilty of suppression. An identical issue was dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of Nandevi Foot Care Ltd. v. C.CE., Vadodara - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 113 (Tri-Mumbai) extending the benefit of limitation to the appellants by observing that when there are two contra opinions existing in the field and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
