9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant. Shri Bidhan Chandra, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. The appellants are not contesting the disputed duty liability on merit. However, they contend that the demand for the period September, 1995 to July, 1997 is time-barred as the notice was issued on 11-8-2000 and the extended time period cannot be applied as department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s they failed to determine the correct assessable value and pay duty accordingly and thus, short paid the duty. It appears that the appellants did not dispute the inclusions of value of the moulds in the assessable value and admitted their mistake and did not contest the allegation levelled in the Show Cause Notice before the adjudicating authority. There is nothing in record to indicate that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is time-barred. I find that this letter dated 13-1-98 is addressed to the appellants by the Range Superintendent of Range VII of Belapur II Division. This is a demand letter and the Supdt. has demanded from the appellants to pay the short paid duty on account of the above suppression for the moulds received from Sept. '95 to July, '97. The appellants close to ignore it. This letter as quite expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit of the demand. It appears that the appellants themselves were aware of the correct position of law all through but evaded Central Excise duty and did not pay correct Central Excise duty timely. The appellants are therefore liable to pay interest on duty not paid and are also liable to penalty." 3. In the circumstances of this case and keeping in view the earlier letter dated 13-1-1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
