2017 (2) TMI 1172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ak Seth For the Respondent : Rahul Agarwal,Vaibhav Pandey ORDER 1. Heard Sri Deepak Seth, learned counsel for appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondent though the case is called in revised. Hence we proceed to decide appeal ex parte after hearing counsel for appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1944") has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xtended period of limitation was applicable in the case in hand for the reason that there was a case of suppression of material fact by Assessee. Issue of limitation was raised by Assessee even before Commissioner and a finding of fact was recorded by Commissioner with respect to suppression of material fact by Assessee and, therefore, allowed extended period of limitation and plea of limitation r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een raised within 5 years of the relevant date, is perfectly within time. The party's arguments to the contrary are not acceptable. I rely upon the following case laws in support of my argument:- Decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Versus C.C.E., Hyderabad [1999(10) LCX0254] CEGAT-LB Decision in the case of M/s. Pure Drinks (P) Ltd. Vs C.C.E., New Delhi [1996....