2015 (11) TMI 514

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: P.K. Das These appeals are arising out of common order and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of C.I. Castings and S.G.I. Castings, classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They purchased Moulds an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Show Cause Notice dt.18.09.2006 is barred by limitation and the show cause notice dt.26.09.2006 is partly barred by limitation. He submits that on the identical issue by show cause notice dt.25.07.2004, demand was raised for the period 2001 to 2004. The Tribunal by Final Order No.A/1244/WZB/AHD/2011, dt.22.06.2011 remanded the matter for quantification of demand of duty. It is submitted that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t.25.07.2004, observed that the limitation aspect does not stand dealt with by the lower authorities by taking into account the overall facts and circumstances and the plea of the Appellant that that the figures of demand/data having been picked up by the Revenue from the balance sheet, which is a public document, no malafide can be attributed to the Appellant. In the present case, the Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of duty for extended period of limitation by show cause notice dt.18.09.2006 and 26.09.2006 cannot be sustained. However, the demand of duty for the normal period by Show Cause Notice dt.26.09.2006 is liable to be upheld. But it is required to examine the quantification of demand by the lower authorities as per earlier order dt.22.06.2011 of the Tribunal. 7. In view of the above discussion, we ....