TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The respondents were working under SSI exemption scheme. Towards the end of the financial year 1996-97, their aggregate value of clearances of specified goods crossed the limit of Rs. 30 lakhs beyond which they were liable to pay duty of excise on the goods at concessional rates in terms of the exemption notification. But it was only at the stage of scruti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s taken in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order of the lower authority. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue. 2. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to both duty and penalty. The appellant has relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, [1999 (114) E.L.T. 429] to contend tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Revenue is hit by res judicata. Now that the finding of "no suppression" is conclusive and beyond challenge by the Revenue, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the extended period of limitation is not invocable in this case has to be affirmed inasmuch as the extended period was invoked only on the ground of suppression. Nevertheless, as fairly submitted by ld. Counsel, the resp....