2012 (9) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h sides.   2. Appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.35/KOL-II/2011 dated 17.03.2011 whereby ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order.   3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper mill machinery falling under 8441.10/8441.90. Proceedings were initiated against them for n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1944. The appellants challenged the same before ld.Commissioner(Appeals). Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order. Hence the appeal.   4. The contention of the appellant is that the period involved in this case is from December, 2000 to March, 2004 and demand was raised on 27.12.2005 which was beyond the normal period of one year prescribed under Rule 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....voked. The contention is that the case was earlier remanded by ld.Commissioner(Appeals) to lower adjudicating authority to verify the case and percentage of recovery. The contention of the appellant is that there is no case of the department for clandestine removal of inputs or finished goods or scrap.   5. Ld.A.R.reiterated the findings of the ld.Commissioner(Appeals).   6. I have....