2003 (5) TMI 392

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. -   Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. 2. In this case, benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellants on the ground that they had taken credit irregularly. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The contention of the appellants is that against earl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fact is admitted by the Revenue. Therefore, no suppression can be alleged against  the appellants. 6. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants had not produced original duty paying documents and the Commissioner held that documents were not defaced by the Superintendent. Therefore, extended period of limitation is invokable. 7. The extended period of limitation is inv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X