TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (11) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Agarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - By the captioned appeal, the appellant has agitated against the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had held - "On time bar, the records show that the Show Cause Notice dt. 18-9-97 despatched under No. 979 has been received by the par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the assessee on the limitation aspect and also on the question that the matter came up as audit objection. 3. Arguing the case for Revenue Shri P.K. Jain, ld. DR submits that the demand-cum-show cause notice was issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise and despatched to the assessee on 18-9-97 under registered cover. Therefore, the same was deemed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh Agarwal, ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the SCN was received after two years, therefore, the entire demand was hit by limitation. He submits that he will be able to produce evidence in support of his contention that the demand-cum-show cause notice was received after more than two years. Ld. Counsel also submit that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance on the decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case in-as-much as in the case of Swastik Tin Works, a SCN was issued without any investigation into identity of goods at any stage whereas in the present case we find that packing forwarding and other expenses were being collected by the assessee and were shown in their records. We also note that this allegation has not been rebutted ....