1999 (12) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l excise registration, etc., the department maintained that the activity of crushing limestone amounted to manufacture and hence, directed the party by show cause notice, to pay Central excise duty during the period November, 1988 to December, 1991; that the dispute which so arose eventually culminated in the party's appeal before the Tribunal; that the Tribunal by final order dated 17-6-1994 held that the activity of crushing limestone amounted to "manufacture" within the meaning of this term under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, but did not uphold the department's plea that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act on the ground of suppression of facts with intent to evade Central Excise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner has noted that the party already paid the Central excise duty as demanded by the Department. The lower appellate authority has, however, upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellants had violated Central Excise Rules. It is stated in the grounds of appeal, and reiterated by the learned Advocate for the appellants at present, that the entire duty demanded for the aforesaid periods was paid by the appellants in acceptance of the final order dated 17-6-1994 of the Tribunal in their earlier case to the effect that duty was payable on the process of crushing of limestone. The learned Advocate, Shri Pragyan Sharma further submits that the Tribunal has already found in its aforesaid final ....