9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.S. Bedi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. 2. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the appellants wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., dated 28-8-95 during the period 22-10-96 to 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the goods cleared prior to 22-10-96 and denied the benefit in respect of the goods cleared after 22-10-96 on the ground that after this date, Chanderpur Power Project is no more financed by the International Organisation. 4. Heard both the sides. 5. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants were clearing the goods during the period in dispute i.e. from 22-10-96 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financed by the World Bank. Maharashtra State Electricity Board also provided necessary payment certificates showing that the project in question is financed by the World Bank. 6. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants were availing the benefit of the notification. Therefore, they have to prove that they were entitled to the benefit of the notification at the time of clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence to show that the appellants were aware of the fact that the loan was suspended by the World Bank. Therefore, no suppression can be alleged against the appellants. Hence, the demand is time barred.
8. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Cross-objections filed by the respondents stand disposed of accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
