Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 72 - CESTAT HYDERABADDemand - time bar - Held that: - The Commissioner (Appeals) has reproduced the grounds alleged by appellant in the impugned order. It is seen that appellants have raised the plea of limitation also. Hence the ground put forward by department that such a plea does not exist is factually wrong. The next contention put forward by department is that Section 11A does not speak the relevant date to be the date of acquiring knowledge by the department, and that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in computing the period of limitation and holding that the demand is time barred. On bare perusal of sub section (3) of Section 11A, it is seen that the argument of the respondent holds merit. The final assessment of bills of entry having concluded in 7/2006, the demand raised in 6/2008 is definitely time barred - appeal dismissed - decided against Department.
|