9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e stipulated time period of one year provided under Section 11A (1). Since there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant, the entire show-cause notice is time barred - appeal allowed on grounds of limitation - decided in favor of assessee. - E/38/06 - A/94209/16/EB - Dated:- 2-12-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Ms. Vibha S, Manager ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l duty was proposed to be demanded. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings on the ground that the issue is settled as per the judgement in the appellant s own case reported in 2001 ( 129) ELT 188 and Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (53) RLT 395 (CEGAT-Del). The adjudicating authority further found that there is no difference between the provisions of erstwhile Rule 57F (2)/57F (3) and Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vibha.S, Manager (Excise) of the appellant submits that they have already paid duty even though not payable in terms of Tribunal decision in their own case vide order No.A/1007/11/EB/C-II dated 24/10/2011. Therefore, the penalty and interest demanded in the present case is not sustainable. She also relied upon the Commissioner (Appeals) order in their own case passed vide Order No.SDK(199)/199/MB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 5. We find that the present case can be disposed of only on limitation without going into the merit of the case. As regards the differential duty, the appellants themselves intimated to the department vide their letter dated 19/05/2000 and 14/01/2002, copies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
