9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, A.R. ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra None present for the Appellant despite notice. Heard the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. 2. This appeal is filed against OIO No.18/Commr/2005, dt.31.03.2005, passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. M.S. Round, CT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd confirmed the adjudicating authority, besides imposing penalty and a direction for recovery of interest under Rule 96ZP of erstwhile Central Excise Rules,1944 . 4. We find that while confirming the demand, the learned Commissioner has recorded the reasons in Para 8 of the impugned order and reads as below:- "8. I find that there is no dispute exists as regards the period from 17.10.1997 to 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 17.10.1997, is within reasonable time period and I also do not intent to interfere with the Order of Commissioner. As per the provisions of Rule 4 of Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, re-determination of APC and benefit of concessional rate of duty based on d factor is warranted only in case of change in existing parameter. As the change in parameter is made effective w.e.f. 17.10.1997 only, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eries of amounts under the compounded levy scheme for re-rollers is not covered by the general time limit prescribed under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. In the light of above decision, the time limit factor does not affect the validity of the Show Cause Notice. There is no violation of principle of natural justice in not hearing them as more than enough opportunities were given to them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
