2010 (9) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Patil, Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C. :  Heard the learned senior counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the Respondent. Perused Appeal. 2. At the out set, the learned counsel for the Respondent Mr. Patil raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Appeal contending that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai had recorded a cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as clandestine clearance, rather their intention was to bring the clearances of pre-modvat stock of mercury to the notice of the Central Excise authority. Thus, from the above, the O-I-O No. 23/LPS/2002, dated 20-5-2002 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III confirming the demand of Rs. 17,01,965.52 along with interest and imposing equal amount of penalty under proviso to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peal. 4. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Authority viz. Commissioner (Appeals) has become final and conclusive. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to answer all substantial questions of law raised since the show cause notice itself is to be treated as barred by limitation. The Appeal is thus dismissed holding that the show cause notice was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X