9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Primella Sanitary Products vs.CCE reported in 2005 (184) ELT 117 (SC) and Oudh Sugar Mills vs. CCE reported in 1999 108 ELT 779. 2. Mrs. Kannu Verma Kumar, the ld. DR appearing for the appellant reiterates the submissions made in the grounds of appeal and relies on the following judgments to support the stand of Revenue that dropping of demand on the ground of limitation is not in conformity with the statutory mandates. 1. Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) 2. Madras Petro-chem Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 1999 (108) ELT 611 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Central Excise Ghaziabad vs. Rathi Steel and Pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise - 1995 (78) ELT 401-SC 5. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records. 6. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by this Tribunal, is as to whether, the Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in setting aside the adjudication order and dropping the duty demand on the ground that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the circumstances of the present case. 7. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded is contained in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Main Clause of Section 11A Provides that the show cause Notice has to be issued within one year from the relevant date, seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said fact is evident from the letter itself, wherein the respondent had specifically mentioned while applying for the registration that the waste alkaline water were also generated during he course of manufacture of the final product, which cannot be stored because of pollution control norms and are disposed of as per mandates of the statute framed by the Government. Since the appellant in very categorical terms has intimated the Department regarding generation of the waste material and disposal of the same from the factory premises, the allegations levelled in the show cause notice and the duty demand confirmed in the adjudication order by invoking the extended period of limitation is not proper and justified. 10. I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
