9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The Revenue was represented by Shri D.S. Negi, ld. DR and the Respondents were represented by Shri J.M. Patel, ld. Advocate. 2. The dispute is in respect of levy of handloom cess on man-made fabrics. The Collector (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly held that handloom cess is not leviable in case of laminated man-made fabrics falling under sub-item 22(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. He also agreed with the contention of the party that show cause notice was barred by limitation. Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if the period of six months is computed from 5-1-1985 the date the corrigendum was issued. 3. Arguing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess and the corrigendum dated 5-1-1985 was issued latter clarifying the earlier notice imposing the liability with reference to the handloom cess. 4. The ld. Counsel submits that on merits no handloom cess is leviable on man-made fabrics and this issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Alagiri Industries v. C.C.E., Bangalore, reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 47 (Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal) as well as the decision of the Tribunal in case of Unique Erectors (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 437. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Without going into the merits of the case we find that there is force in the argument advanced on behalf of the Respondents on time bar issue. In the original notice issued by the department there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
