2010 (3) TMI 952

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. After examining the records and hearing the ld. D.R. for the appellant, we note that the lower appellate authority granted partial relief to the respondent by ordering re-determination of duty liability for the normal period of limitation, which he took as six months under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ght into force on 12-5-2000 under the Finance Act, 2000 and accordingly, the normal period of limitation became one year. The question which now arises for consideration after hearing the ld. D.R is whether, on the facts of the present case, the normal period of limitation should be taken as six months or one year. In this connection, the ld. DR. has referred to the Board s clarification containe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any period beyond the normal period of limitation. Obviously the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was proceeding on the wrong premise that the normal period of limitation was six months. Though, in the present appeal, the appellant has not raised the limitation issue with reference to the aforesaid amendment to Section 11A(1), the ld. D.R. has presented the matter in the correct perspective. The issue, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X