2009 (9) TMI 837

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The Appellant filed this Appeal against the impugned Order challenging the demand on the ground of limitation. Contention of the Appellant is that a show cause notice was issued on 9-1-06 demanding duty for the period from December, 2004 to March, 2005 on the ground of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The present show cause n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... all the facts and produced the records for the relevant period and when the Revenue came to know about the evasion of duty to that effect, another show cause notice was issued on 17-1-08 for the earlier period i.e. from April, 2004 to November, 2004 by invoking the extended period of limitation. In this connection, Revenue relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Petr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ducts was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 (105) E.L.T. A192 (S.C.). 4. I find that in this case, a show cause notice was issued on 9-1-06 demanding duty for the period from December, 2004 to March, 2005 alleging suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. The present proceeding was initiated by issuing another show cause notice on 17-1-08 for the earlier period fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r two years alleging the same ground and invoking the extended period of limitation. The demand under second show cause notice is not sustainable as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 of the said decision held as follows :- "9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. ....