9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y they will be paying duty w.e.f. 1-1-1998. The appellant have been filing monthly RT12 return wherein the payment of duty as per the revised capacity was declared. With this fact department was well aware that appellant for paying duty on the revised capacity w.e.f. 1-1-1998, therefore I do not see any suppression of facts on the part of the appellant - demand is time barred - appeal allowed - de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r No. 1/98 dated 1-4-1998 by which they were required to pay duty of ₹ 1,92,300/- per month. The appellant vide their letter dated 17-12-1997 and 1-4-1998 had informed the Commissioner that they had changed the parameters of their rolling mills w.e.f. 1-1-1998 and requested to re-determine the annual production capacity. The Commissioner vide Order No. 3/99 dated 22-7-1999 re-determined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period 2/98 to 4/98 as for revised order of the Commissioner, which was effective from 1-2-1998. Accordingly, the demand for the month of January, 1998 for differential duty for ₹ 1,08,600/- was confirmed under the adjudication of show cause notice dated 26-4-1999. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who upheld the Order-in-Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of facts on the part of the appellant, demand before the period of six months from the date of show cause notice is clearly time bar. 3. On the other hand, Shri. V.K. Shastri, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. As regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
