1992 (3) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted that duty has been levied for the period 17-12-1985 to 26-3-1990 by invoking the longer period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 inter alia alleging that the goods which were allegedly defective and brought back and re-processed and cleared in terms of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were actually re-manufactured and would not be covered by Rule 173H. The learned counsel assailed the correctness of the reasoning of the adjudicating authority and contended that in the present case the defective "gelatines" were brought back after due intimation to the Department by way of D3 intimation and re-processed and even in re-processing it is only the impurities and contaminations in the ge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... usage has emerged in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, on prima facie ground we grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending disposal of the appeal. The Registry will fix the date for hearing the appeal in its normal turn. 5. [Assent per: V.P. Gulati, Member (T)]. - I observe that duty in the case has been demanded for the period 17-12-1985 to 26-3-1990 and the show cause notice has been issued on 11-12-1990. The longer period of limitation has been invoked for the reason that there has been suppression of fact on the part of the applicants. The learned Advocate for the applicants pleads that the applicants had availed of the facility under Rule 173H after due intimation to the authorities and had been comp....