TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IS (2007 -TMI - 1589 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the benefit has already been denied. Limitation - Tribunal held the demand raised after the normal period of 6 months to be barred by limitation - The demand raised for the period April 2002 to March 2003 by way of show cause notice issued in April 2004 would be time barred by limitation, except for the period which falls within the limitation - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Order No. A/2584-2585/WZB/AHD/08, dated 26-11-08 [2009 (245) E.L.T. 265 (T)] and by taking note of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of M/s. Solaris - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), as also Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Reliance Industries vide Final Order No. A/2081-2084/WZB/AHD/07, dated 29-11-07, the benefit has already been denied. However, Tribunal held the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be said that there was any suppression or mala fide on the part of the respondents so as to justifiable to invoke a longer period. This is also the ratio of the Tribunal decision in case of M/s. Reliance Industries as also in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cements referred supra. As such, we are of the view that though, on merits, Revenue s pleas succeed but on limitation they failed. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
