1996 (6) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Notification Nos. 77/85 and 175/86 since the value of clearances during the relevant period exceeded Rs. 75 lacs. Hence this appeal. 2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate submits that the appellants manufacture lime classifiable under the Tariff Item 68 in three factories located at Sagma (Satna), Salaiya and Katni. The appellants also processed lime with water to get slaked lime. The Salaiya Unit had made clearances of unslaked lime on payment of duty to the Satna unit and Katni unit during the period 1985-86. All the three units claimed concession under Notification No. 77/85 on the ground that the value of clearances during the period 1985-86 did not exceed Rs. 75 lacs. For the purpose of computing this limit of cle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants from the three units during the period 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1987 on the very same grounds on which earlier show cause notice dated 30-9-1985 was issued. 3. At the outset, learned Advocate submits that once the show cause notice was discharged, another show cause notice could not be issued on the same set of facts for extended period. This show cause notice was issued on 30-3-1989 for the period 1-3-1985 to 31-3-1987 whereas the previous show cause notice was issued on 31-3-1985 and was discharged on 27-1-1986. Even assuming while denying that the differential duty was payable, the second show cause notice could not invoke the extended period as the show cause notice issued earlier on the same set of facts had been discharged. ....