1999 (5) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant. Shri G.B. Yadav, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The appellants were engaged in recommissioning of the bridge on the river Mandovi at Panaji, Goa during period 1988 to 1993. On 2-7-90 the local Supdt. of Central Excise called for certain information pertaining to the details of fabrication of certain items viz. trusses, shuttering, pipe l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ade was barred by limitation. The Collector on hearing the appellants, passed the impugned order. He held the goods to be excisable and dutiable goods. He denied the suggestion that the goods were manufactured by independent manufacturers on the observation that the raw materials were supplied by the appellants. He examined the claim on limitation. He observed that as soon as the officers came to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Shri Daruwala stated that the enquiry commenced in July, 1990 and was completed in August, 1991. In the absence of any direction from the Excise Department, the assessees believed that their activity did not amount to manufacture and/or that the burden to pay duty was not on them. He states that in view of the knowledge of the department, the show cause notice issued nearly after two year....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate of show cause notice, the Tribunal held the plea of limitation would sustain. In doing so, among other citations, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment in the case of Mopeds India Ltd. [1991 (56) E.L.T. 241 (Tribunal)] in which the department had knowledge in October, 1975. The show cause notice was issued in January, 1977. The period of delay in the cited case is identical to the period of de....