9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their Memorandum of Appeal which was not argued by adjudicating authority - Held that:- it is found that their is a mistake apparent from the face of record and no findings have been given by this Bench. This mistake is required to be rectified by giving suitable observations on the time-bar aspect of Section 11A demand. It is observed from the representing GP.1s that appellant has been showing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated 20-2-2014 passed by this Bench. 2. Sh. Anand Nainawati (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued the case in the light of Order No. I/113/2015, dated 18-3-2015. It was his case that under Order-in-Original No. 35/MP/75, dated 29-5-1995, an amount of ₹ 30,88,632.47 was also confirmed under Sec. 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That this demand is time barred as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant while filing appeal with CESTAT, Ahmedabad raised the issue of time bar with respect, to demand of ₹ 30,88,632.47, confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Sec. 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After perusal of records, we find that their is a mistake apparent from the face of record and no findings have been given by this Bench. This mistake is required to be rectified by g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
