2018 (8) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....EMBER (TECHNICAL) For Appellant : Sh. Hardik Modh (advocate) For Respondent : Sh. K. Kinariwala (AR) ORDER Per : Mr. Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Printed Paper Label and Printed Film Labels fall under chapter 48-49 respectively of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In pursuance of an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held the order and rejected the appeal of the appellant, therefore, the appellant are before us. 2. Sh. Hardik Modh Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that they are not contesting the levy of duty on merit, however, he submits that they have a strong case on limitation, hence, the demand for the longer period will not sustain. He submits that the appellant ri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Sudio Printal (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-I-2004 9172) ELT 402 (Tri. Del) Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Vadodara-2003 (152) ELT 262 (SC) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad-II 2003 (161) ELT 251 (Tri. Mum) S K Enterprises vs CCE Delhi 2004 (175) ELT 686 (Tri. Del) K....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (Supra). On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appellant have produced ample material in support of their defence on the ground of time bar but the Ld. Commissioner in his findings stated as under: ...................................................................................................................