1998 (6) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Shri P.R. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant firm has advanced arguments only on the point of demand being time barred. Elaborating, he submits that two different show cause notices were issued to them. The first show cause notice was issued on 19-8-1991 for the period from August, 1990 to March, 1991 and the second notice was issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he submissions advanced from both sides. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) records as - "As regards the point of limitation, I find that the A.C. in his order-in-original, inter alia, observed that the amounts of wrongfully availed Modvat credits were demanded in the assessment memorandum of the respective RT 12 Returns, but the appellant had not paid the same. This fact was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h as the same reflects the knowledge on the part of the Department. Accordingly, I hold that the notices are partly barred by limitation and set aside that part of the orders which confirm the demand raised for the period of six months from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. The duty amount is to be re-calculated by the jurisdictional Departmental Authorities in the light of the above ....