TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the order in original bearing No. Addl. Collr. 72/89, dated 21-7-1989. In the aforesaid order the Addl. Collector has invoked the extended period and confirmed the duty demand for a sum of Rs. 8,186 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the appellants. 2. The facts of the case are that certain goods were cleared from the appellants factory in December, 1985 and they were receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processes amount to remanufacture was not revealed to the Department. In the adjudication proceedings, the aforesaid allegations were confirmed resulting in filing of the present appeal. 3. After hearing both the sides and also perusing the relevant gate- passes as also the D-3 declarations filed for the receipt of the duty paid goods, the following undisputed factual position emerges. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the subsequent opinion of the Department was held to be manufacture, the appellants cannot be blamed that the material facts have been suppressed away from the Deptt. Since the show cause notice was issued only on 22-9-1988 and the allegation of suppression of any material facts is not sustainable the notice is time-barred. In view of the aforesaid position, I allow the appeal and set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
