9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri U.H. Jadhav, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri V.K. Jain, the Ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri U.H. Jadhav, the Ld. D.R., we find that demand of duty of Rs. 34,66,786/- stands confirmed against the appellant by denying them the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve order on merits as also on limitation. Apart from contending that there is no finding that Modvat credit was availed by the appellant, they have also submitted that the demand is barred by limitation. In fact, the entire demand is beyond the maximum limitation period of five years. Reliance has been placed on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Futura Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Sheva - 2003 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we also note that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant had availed Modvat credit. The ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case Futura Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Sheva - 2000 (39) RLT 874 (CEGAT) or in the case of Lacure Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 169 (Tri. - Mum.) is squarely applicable to the fact of the instant case. Accordingly, we als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
