2005 (1) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts and Shri K. Sanyal, ld. JDR for the respondents. 2. Shri Banerjee submits that the demand is barred by limitation. In support of his contention, he relies on the following decisions : (i)      Commissioner of Central Excise, Jsr. v. TISCO : 2001 (137) E.L.T. 571 (Tri. - Kolkata); (ii)     Bharat Laundry : 1991 (54) E.L.T. 316 (G.O.I.). H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00. A show cause notice was issued on 25th January, 2001. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. TISCO, this Bench has held as under : "Demand - Limitation - Deficiencies found in stock verification report - Provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 to apply - Erstwhile Rule 233A of Central Excise Rules, 1944." Therefore, the demand is time bar. 5. In the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-original or order-in-appeal. It was done only on the basis of eye estimation which cannot be the basis for quantifying the demand for deciding the charge of clandestine removal. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Micro Forge (I) Pvt. Ltd. referred to above wherein the Tribunal has held as under : "Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Shortage of finished goods - Proof of ....