2008 (9) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of screen emulsions and screen auxiliaries falling under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption Notification, during the relevant time. Vide show cause notice dated 15-1-1999, the benefit of Notification was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e submits that as the entire demand having been raised against the appellants is beyond the normal period of limitation, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the said ground itself. 3. We find that the above plea of the appellant does not stand accepted by the authorities below on the ground that they have not declared in their central excise documents that they were using the b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot Care Ltd. v. C.CE., Vadodara - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 113 (Tri-Mumbai) extending the benefit of limitation to the appellants by observing that when there are two contra opinions existing in the field and if the assessee entertained a bona fide belief on the basis of such views, he cannot be guilty of suppression. By adopting the said ratio, we set aside the impugned order on the point of time-bar an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X