2006 (3) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... L/2006 - Dated:- 28-3-2006 - [Order] - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30- 04-2004 wherein the Order-in-Original confirming the demand, imposing penalty and confiscating the goods was upheld. 2. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused records I find that the appellant factory was visited by the officers on 04-08-1997 and have found that some .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... confiscation of the goods (which were seized on 4-8-1997 was sought, in the show cause notice which was handed over to the appellant on 9-3-1998. Since the show cause notice is issued beyond the period of six months for the confiscation of the goods seized and in the absence of any extension, granted for issuing the show cause notice in respect of the seized goods, I find that the goods cannot be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oceedings. In this case the authorities were aware on 22-8-1996 itself that there are high loss percentage in manufacturing, still they chose not to issue show cause notice till 29-1-1998. 4. The whole show cause notice is hopelessly time-barred, in respect of demand of duty as well as the confiscation of the goods which were seized. Appeal of the Appellant is allowed only on the ground of time .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X