2004 (10) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R. Madhiam, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri J.R. Madhiam, ld. JDR for the respondents. 2. Shri Chattopadhyay submits that the only ground for which the credit has been disallowed is a letter dated 25th February, 2002 from the appellants. The law was not clear to them initially. Hence they agreed with the Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e extended to the appellants. He further submits that the demand has been raised on 26-9-2002 for the period from 1-5-2000 to 30-4-2001. The demand being issued beyond a period of one year, so the demand is time-barred. This has also been confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Therefore, he submits that the demand is time-barred and the demand of duty cannot be confirmed. He, therefo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce demanding the duty which has not been levied or paid or which has been short paid should be issued within 1 year from the relevant date. In the present case, I find that the show-cause has been issued beyond the normal time limit of 1 year by invoking extended clause under Section 11A(1) by way of allegation that there was suppression of material facts or wilful mis-statement on the part of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...." So, it is clear that the demand raised by the show-cause notice is barred by limitation. Similarly, the Commissioner has also come to the conclusions that the appellants are entitled for Cenvat credit on the capital goods. Commissioner has observed in his order at internal pages 13 and 14 which is reproduced below : "Going by decision of the above case laws and use of different item of iro....