2017 (7) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Bench M/s. Carborandum Universal Ltd., who are appellants were taken over by M/s. Cutfast Abrasives Tools Ltd., with effect from 17.07.1998. During 1980/90 s, M/s. Cutfast Abrasives Tools Ltd., Pallikaranai and M/s. Cutfast Bonded Abrasives both were in existence. M/s. Cutfast Bonded Abrasives Ltd., were enjoying SSI exemption available under the Notificat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 7,45,720/- as basic excise duty and Rs. 37,286/- as special excise duty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri M. Kannan, put forward the arguments on the ground of limitation. He submitted that appellants had not exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4.1991 though the order of amalgamation was passed vide judgment dated 20.02.1992. He therefore pleaded that the demand ought to have been raised by the department within six months of such information and the demand raised invoking the extended period is unsustainable. 3. Against this, the Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, relied upon the judgment in the case of CCE, Madurai Vs. Vidyasagar T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... such circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court held that the benefit of Notification would not be applicable. In the present case, the Hon'ble High Court has given the specific date for amalgamation which is 01.04.1991. However, the scheme of amalgamation was approved by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 20.02.1992 only. On receiving the information appellants submitted the same to the depar....