2004 (2) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- This appeal is directed against order-in-original No. 18/2000, dated 27-10-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad. Duty demand of over Rs. 63 lakhs alongwith interest, and imposition of penalty has been made in the impugned order. 2. The appellants resist the demand both on merits of limitation. 3. The submission on limitation is that the show cause notice has been is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned Counsel that the differential duty demand has resulted from a cost audit of the appellant's unit by the Central Excise authorities and not on account of any suppressions of facts by the assessee. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the allegation of suppression made in the notice, is that "the assessee have suppressed the fact of correct assessable value". It is the learned Counsel's s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....' submission on the ground of limitation. Therefore, we are not going into the merits of the case. Para 2 of the show cause notice makes it clear that, according to the Central Excise Cost Accounting team, the assessable values should be higher than the assessable value worked out and certified by the appellant's Chartered Accountant. Learned Counsel for the appellant is, therefore, right in conte....