TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. The appellants were engaged in recommissioning of the bridge on the river Mandovi at Panaji, Goa during period 1988 to 1993. On 2-7-90 the local Supdt. of Central Excise called for certain information pertaining to the details of fabrication of certain items viz. trusses, shuttering, pipe lines etc. The appellants vide letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector on hearing the appellants, passed the impugned order. He held the goods to be excisable and dutiable goods. He denied the suggestion that the goods were manufactured by independent manufacturers on the observation that the raw materials were supplied by the appellants. He examined the claim on limitation. He observed that as soon as the officers came to know about the manufacturing activit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommenced in July, 1990 and was completed in August, 1991. In the absence of any direction from the Excise Department, the assessees believed that their activity did not amount to manufacture and/or that the burden to pay duty was not on them. He states that in view of the knowledge of the department, the show cause notice issued nearly after two years cannot be sustained. 4. We have examined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f limitation would sustain. In doing so, among other citations, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment in the case of Mopeds India Ltd. [1991 (56) E.L.T. 241 (Tribunal)] in which the department had knowledge in October, 1975. The show cause notice was issued in January, 1977. The period of delay in the cited case is identical to the period of delay in the facts before us. Accepting the arguments th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
