2002 (5) TMI 549

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the fact, that they did not have the facility of hot-rolling was in the knowledge of the department as such extended period was not applicable and the demand was time-barred. I find Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. C.C.E. - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 429 (T) has held that limitation of five years was available even when deptt. had knowledge of facts. Therefore, Order-in-Appeal passed by adjudicating authority is upheld. Appeal rejected". 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cold-Rolled Strips of non-alloy steel and steel tubes. During the course of audit it was noticed that the appellants received 373.797 MTs of imported H.R. Coil of thickness 2.3 mm from SA....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... C/List declaring the above final product and submitting RT-12 returns; that the Department never raised any objection; that the appellant's factory was regularly visited by the Central Excise Officers; that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued much beyond a period of six months; that there was no suppression or misstatement so as to invoke longer period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned Counsel also submitted that in the gate passes and other duty paying documents the description of the goods was given as steel tubes made out of imported HR coils; that this clearly illustrated that the imported HR coils were not being rolled to reduce the thickness and since the thickness....