9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 253/05 - F.O.Nos. 214-217/2007 - Dated:- 1-2-2007 - [Order per: S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The assesses and the Department have filed these appeals against a common Order-in-Original No. 48/2003- 04 (RP) (Denovo) dated 27-1-2004. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants holding that the activity of fabrication of various structures like columns, Crane, Griders, Trusses, Roof Griders, Purli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1988 to the date of show cause notice, i.e. 9-2-1989 is required to be re-computed. It is his submission that the entire facts were know to the Department. The Department had issued show cause notice and the matter had been adjudicated. Therefore in terms of the Apex Court judgment in case of Nizam Sugar Factory [2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.), the demands are barred by time as they were adjudicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er No. 1057-1068/99, dated 11-5-99 had set aside the confirmed demand. Therefore the demands are not sustainable. He prays for setting aside the demands solely on the ground of time bar. 3. The learned DR defends the order and submits that in large of number of judgments it has been clearly held that the activity carried out by the assessee would be dutiable. As regards the invocation of large ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment rendered in the case of Oriental Construction Co. cited supra is clearly distinguishable while we hold that the items manufacture would bring into existence as held in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. (supra). However, the facts of the case clearly shows that the Department were well aware of the proceedings; that the manufacture of the goods; that earlier proceedings and resulting in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
