2006 (2) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR, for the Appellant. Shri Venkateswara Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This is a Revenue appeal. The Revenue is aggrieved with Order-in-Appeal No. 16 and 42/04-CE dated 26-2-2004. The Commissioner (A) has noted that the demands cannot be confirmed as the demands are barred by time. He has noted that the assessee neither mis-stated nor suppress....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r (A) has examined the issue in depth and held that the demands are not raised within time. He had also noted that there is no allegation of suppression of any material information or mis-statement or fraud. He has applied the ratio of the Tribunal's ruling in the case of Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 662 (Tri.). The order is legal an....