1997 (11) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R. Swaminathan, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. -  The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Principal Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi who has dropped the demand of differential duty raised on the respondents herein for the period 7-12-1986 to 30-6-1987 on a product known as "Foot Powder". 2. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee filed an appeal against this order before the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. On 15-1-1988, a show cause notice proposing recovery of differential duty for the period 7-12-1986 to 30-6-1987 was issued, invoking the extended period of limitation under the provisions of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Principal Collector adjudicated this notice dropping the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., learned Consultant. 4. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 12-6-1990 has been accepted by the department and that the department has not filed any appeal in that case and the present case proceeds on the basis that since the jurisdictional Assistant Collector has already, vide his order dated 19-11-1987, approved the classification list under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decision on merits, the Principal Collector has also held that the demand is barred by limitation, in view of the fact that there was no suppression by the respondents, and that a earlier show cause notice had been issued and adjudicated upon. This part of the Collector's order has not been challenged in the present appeal. There is no ground relating to the findings on time bar. In fact that app....