2017 (12) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Naga Kumari, Commissioner/ (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No:128/2007 (V-I) CE, dated 08.10.2007. 2. Heard both sides and perused records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding demand of differential Central Excise duty from the appellant for the period 1993-94 on the ground ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aration being 15.04.1994. Appellant argued the matter before the lower authorities on limitation as well as on merits. The findings of the first appellate authority on limitation are as under:  "7. I find that the Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellant for the period 1988-89 to 1992-93 on the ground that the extended period of lim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es, 1944. Therefore, I find that the six months time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall be applicable from the date of filing of the annual declaration under Rule 174A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. I find that the show cause notice was issued on 13^th October, 1994. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial year. The above said case law is clearly distinguishable as the unit was registered with the department and the manufacturer can avail the exemption only at the end of the financial year under the relevant notification and the issue was regarding claim of refund. Hence, the same cannot be made applicable to the present case." 5. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings recorded by ....