9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation of suppression based on same facts is not sustainable X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority subsequently confiscated the brass rods and this order is not challenged by the appellant. 2. Thereafter, in the year 17-3-2004 another show-cause notice was issued for demanding duty from April 1990 (sic) (April 1999) to 15-12-99 in respect of brass rods which were more than 10 Feet long asking for duty in respect of brass rods after denying the benefit of notification on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that earlier proceeding is in respect of confiscation of the goods and show-cause notice is to be issued within six months from the date of seizure, therefore the demand is not time barred. As in the present proceedings, the duty is demanded in respect of the goods cleared by the appellant without payment of duty. 5. The contention of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) held that when all relevant facts with the knowledge of authorities when first show-cause notice issued then allegation of suppression of facts in the second show-cause notice based on the same facts is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- "Allegation of suppression of facts against the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
