1998 (12) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - In this case, a demand of Rs. 7,24,511.70 has been confirmed against the Appellants herein on the ground that this amount of duty was payable since they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 206/63, dated 30-11-1963. 2. The Appellants are manufacturers of Welded Wire mesh falling under T.I. 68. They filed a classification list claiming ben .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was not available since the Assessees had used imported iron and steel bars and rods and not any of the inputs covered by the Notification. The demand was confirmed by the Collector, rejected Assessee's contention that since they had paid countervailing duty on the imported goods, the benefit under the notification should be extended to them. Hence this Appeal. 4. The Appellants have asked .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... viz., the imported bars and rods of iron and steel are not permissible inputs for the purpose of the notification. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the ld. Collector on denial of the benefit of the Notification. However, the Appellants have a good case on limitation. The Show Cause Notice admittedly has been issued after the stipulated period of six months as noted by the Adjudicating Aut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X