9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order]. Both the stay petitions are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned orders passed by authorities below confirming demand of Rs. 4,01,693/- against M/s. Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. along with imposition of penalty of identical amount on the findings of clandestine removal. In addition penalty of Rs. 10,000/- stands imposed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued on 9-5-2005. He submits that thus relying upon the Tribunal s decision wherein under similar circumstances, it was held that the demand is to be held as barred by limitation. He prays for unconditional stay. Ld. Advocate also submits that the appellant s financial position is poor inasmuch as the factory is lying closed for the last 5 years and the same has been rented for a monthly rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Salasar Dyg. . Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd. (Order No. A/1217-1221/WZB/AHD/08, dt. 23-6-2008) [2009 (235) E.L.T. 93 (Tribunal)] 4. After considering the arguments from both the sides, I find that for invoking longer period of limitation, Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, Hyder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the notice issued after a period of 6 months from the date of visit of the officers and completion of investigations is clearly barred by limitation, as declared by the Tribunal s decisions referred therein. Similarly in the case of M/s. Prasad Polypack Company v. CCE, Chennai-IV [2008 (224) E.L.T. 326 (T) = 2008 (85) RLT 401 (CESTAT-Chen.)], show cause notice issued after a period of 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is seen that the earlier orders of the Tribunal were not taken note of by the Bench in the case of M/s. Salasar Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (235) E.L.T. 93 (Tribunal)]. Inasmuch as the precedent decisions are in favour of the appellant, I am of the view that appellants, prima facie, have been able to establish a case in their favour on the point of limitation. 5. I also note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
