2008 (7) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arred by limitation on the ground that there was no justification for invocation of the longer period of limitation in absence of suppression of facts or misstatement with intention to evade payment of duty despite contravention of provisions of Notification No.1/93-CE, dated 8-2-1993?" 2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the respondent has claimed benefit of Notification No.1/93-CE, dated 8-2-1993 despite the fact that the respondent had crossed the monetary limit specified in the notification, and was thus not entitled to the concession available to a small-scale industrial unit. That in the circumstances, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) has committed an error in confirming....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 25-11-99 for short payment of duty during the period December, 1994 to February, 1995, on the same ground, duty was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner but set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) by observing as under: "a. find that the main contention of the appellant is that they were regularly filing RT-12 returns along with relevant invoices for clearance of excisable goods during the relevant period and they had also filed declaration under Rule 173B claiming benefit of SSI exemption. Therefore, there is no suppression of facts and hence the demand is time barred. I have perused the copies of RT-12 returns and the declaration filed under Rule 173B by the appellant and I find that the same were acknowledged by the department. ....