9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not possible to state that any error in law has been committed by the Tribunal so as to give rise to a substantial question of law. - 1491 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2008 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. Shri Harin P. Raval, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)].- Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat I, the appellant herein has proposed the following question stated to be substantial question of law. "(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the tribunal is justified in upholding the view of the appellate authority that the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that there was no justification for invocation of the longer peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the manufacture of texturised yarn falling under Chapter 54 of CETA, 1985, the said yarn was specified as one of the items and entitled for small scale exemption Notification No.1/93 with effect from 25-4-94. It is seen that originally, there was a dispute and confusion in their industry as regards the computation of clearance value of Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 75 lakhs. It is seen that a demand notice was issued to the appellant earlier and the matter was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which his order dated 24-9-96 and the short payment was deposited by them in their Modvat account. 4. The present show cause notice was issued on 25-11-99 for short payment of duty during the period December, 1994 to February, 1995, on the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misstatement with intention to evade payment of duty. As such, I find no merits in the revenues appeal. The same is accordingly rejected. 4. Thus, on a plain reading, it becomes apparent that the first appellate authority perused the copies of RT-12 returns and the declaration filed under Rule 173B by the respondent assessee and recorded that in the circumstances, no suppression of facts was proved. It is further noted by the first appellate authority that the returns and declarations were on record and had been acknowledged by the department. In light of these findings recorded by the first appellate authority, the Tribunal has stated that admittedly, the entire facts were within the knowledge of the revenue when the earlier show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
