TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NT Per: P R Chandrasekharan: Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No: PS(320)/101/2004 dated 30/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondent herein i.e. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ld., on the ground of time-bar by holding that in the price declaration filed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsignee as 'self' which shows that there is no delivery at the factory-gate and the goods have been delivered at the site where the pipe is laid. Therefore, the dropping of the demand by the lower appellate authority on account of time-bar is incorrect in law. 3.1 The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates these grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. 4. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the supply of pipes in respect of work-contract undertaken by them. If these documents were available with the Revenue and deduction towards freight was claimed on the basis of these documents, it cannot be said that the respondent suppressed any fact. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on a decision of this Tribunal in respondent's own case reported in 2004 (163) ELT 273 ....