1998 (4) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Nunthuk, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. -  Ld. Advocate Shri Sridharan in this matter has only pleaded that the demand of duty for Rs. 6,15,287.95 is barred by time inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on 11-11-1988, whereas the period of demand is 1983-84 and 1984-85 (two financial years). Ld. Advocate has submitted that according to the law lai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pose of limitation in the facts of this case, because, as stated above, duty relates to the financial years 1983-85. He fortifies himself by Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (para 3) for the aforesaid proposition. He therefore, submits that the demand of duty be set aside without entering into the other questions on merits for which a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance has been suppressed by the appellant and therefore, 5 years limitations will be available to the Revenue. 3. In his rejoinder, ld. Advocate has drawn our specific attention to Para F-8 wherein he has relied on the case of Bata India Ltd. v. Union of India [1985 (21) E.L.T. 8], on the importance of the matter with the benefit of Notification 64/83-C.E. to be available after deducting t....