9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce-President (J)]. - The question for decision in this appeal is the legality or correctness of demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8903.95 for the period 20-4-1978 to 26-8-1978 demanded by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-III, Faridabad by show cause notice dated 15-12-1980 and confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division-II, Faridabad by his Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition under the notification. While during arguments Shri H.S. Bedi for the appellants argued that the appellants had, in fact, paid duty amount to the manufacturer, this fact alone would not alter the basic fact that even though the manufacturer of Kraft Paper may have collected duty from the appellants, they had availed of the benefit of exemption under Notification 128/77 and the Kraft Pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the appellants and the same had been duly approved by the Competent Authority. This aspect of the matter has not been challenged by Shri A.K. Rajhans, the learned JDR, representing the Department. In fact, on the date of hearing Shri Bedi, Chartered Accountant for the appellants had come with the R.T. 12 Returns and these were shown to Shri A.K. Rajhans, JDR for the respondent. Even though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady mentioned that in the show cause notice there is no allegation of any mis-statement, collusion, fraud or like on the part of the appellants nor are there any facts from which such an inference could be drawn. We, therefore, on merits find against the appellants but set aside the demand on the ground of limitation. Amount if collected from the appellants shall be refunded to them. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
