9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Jt. CDR, For Respondent Per : Ashok Jindal Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and supply of ACSR Moose Conductors of various sizes and availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995. During the period, February 2001 to December 2001, the appellants cleared the above said products to vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 01 to March - 01 on 28th February 2002 and second for the period April - 01 to December - 01 on 18.08.2005. By the impugned order, demand of duty under Section 11A and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC were confirmed against the appellants on the ground that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of exemption in Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995. Aggrieved b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich show-cause notice dated 18.8.2005 was issued to them. For these, he submitted that the demands are barred by limitation. Hence the impugned order qua these demands be set aside. 4. Heard and considered. 5. We have gone through the case records and the submissions made by the learned Advocate wherein we find in those cases where the projects were financed by JBIC (which is not an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said stay order was vacated by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by Final Order dated 02.03.2005 by dismissing the Writ Petition. Therefore, to calculate the normal period of limitation the period of stay by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh is to be excluded. If this period is excluded, we find that some demands confirmed in show-cause notice dated 18.08.2005 are within the norma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
