9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority by the appellant as early as 13.08.2004, the contention in the show cause notice that the information was suppressed from the department is not established to be true. Therefore, the said SCN is hit by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as stated in the said show cause notice that the appellant had not declared dyeing of grey yarn consumed captively for the manufacture of exempted goods i.e. Handloom Durries and Rugs, in their monthly ER-I returns and hence, suppressed the facts from the department. 3. The appellant contested before the original authority that the demand was hit by limitation. They contended before the original authority that they had furnished copies of job work intimations under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 and intimation under Rule 12B regarding sending of cotton yarn for manufacturing Durries from various units to the department. It was further stated that the entire information was submitted by the appellant in the year 2004 during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the limitation period should be reckoned from 13.08.2004 and that even if the date for the said purpose is taken as 11.02.2005 which is admitted by the ld. original authority, the show cause notice issued on 10.01.2007 is clearly time-barred. She further contended that since there was no proposal for confiscation of goods, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, was not imposable the Director i.e. the other appellant. 4. Ld. DR has supported the impugned order-in-original. 5. We have carefully gone through the submissions of both sides and the record of the appeal. The short issue to be decided is whether the present issue is hit by limitation as claimed by the appellant or the contention of the original authority that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
