9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)]. - On hearing the ROM appliction filed by the appellants against Final Order No. A/1204/97-DB, dated 26-12-1997 [1999 (109) E.L.T. 679 (Tri.)] for rectification of a mistake apparent on face of the record at paragraph 6 of the said order, this Tribunal had by Misc. order M/248/99-NB DB, dated 5-11-1999 [2000 (115) E.L.T. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. The said decision namely U.P. State Cement Corpn. v. Union of India [1996 (86) E.L.T. 6 Allahabad High Court] had held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 will be applicable to Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules. It was held in that case that a show cause notice issued beyond a period of six months and which contained no allegati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is covered under Rule 196, requires to be modified. 5. Ld. SDR, Shri Mewa Singh leaves it to the Bench. 6. We find that the submissions made by the ld. Counsel has merit. On a perusal of the Allahabad High Court judgment (supra) and the impugned Final Order of the Tribunal, we find that the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court has not been taken note of in the penultimate para of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we find that out of the total period for which demand has been made, there is only a certain period which falls within six months. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to rework the duty liability within the six months period in accordance with the ratio of the Hon'ble High Court judgment referred to above. Having regard to the reduced duty liability, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
