2008 (1) TMI 677

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant. Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. We have heard Shri M.M. Mathkar, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri P.M. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manuf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g 7320, 7326 and 76.16. The said proposed classification was found favoured with by the adjudicating authority, who held the classification of the accessories in accordance with the proposal given by the assessee and directed that demand be accordingly confirmed. However, he rejected the assessee's claim for benefit of Modvat credit on the ground that no declarations under the said chapters were m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....find that there is no dispute about classification of the goods by either side. Revenue is only aggrieved by the findings of the Collector (Appeals) which are to the effect that the limitation of six months for demand of differential duty would be reckoned from 17-2-1994. It is their contention that all the show cause notices were issued within the limitation period of six months under Section 11A....