TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (6) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - The appellant, Karnataka State Government Undertaking engaged in manufacture of Telecommunication equipment, supplied certain products to the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India claiming the duty benefit of Notification No. 73/90 dated 20-3-1990. The claims were approved and RT 12s were assessed. However they received a show cause notice d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hone Exchanges. He did not accept the plea of time bar. 2. We have heard both sides and considered the matter and find :- (a) The assessments were complete and clearances effected, the last of each type being on 5/2, 30/3/93 & 18-1-1994. The Board's clarification is only for RAX 512 Port and not for the goods cleared i.e. 128 Port RAX, 256 Port RAX and ILT 512 as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat RAX will be complete only if alarm Display unit and over voltage stabilizer is cleared together with other components which is relied by the adjudicator. Therefore, the benefit, availed on the strength of the Dy. Director General certificate, was not correct and to that extent there was a mistake made on the part of the appellant. We cannot appreciate this argument of the adjudicator. How can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Dy. Director General for the goods in question. Therefore, we can not find any deliberate intent to evade payment of duty, to call for the invoking of a demand for the period 16-7-1992 to 28-2-1994, by the Show Cause Notice dated 12-1-1995 on the ground of mistake made as determined in this case. The demands are barred by limitation. There has to be unassailable material on record to come t....