9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that the matter has been coming on record a number of times when the same was being repeatedly adjourned. Accordingly, we have heard the learned DR and have gone thorough the impugned order. 2. As per facts on record, appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic bags falling under Chapter heading 3923 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute in the present appeal relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice for the period from 01.3.1997 to 01.6.1998 was issued on 15.01.2002 for confirming the demand of duty. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Ultra Flex (P) Limited vs. CCE, Faridabad 2004 (167) ELT 354 (Tri. Del.). 4. We note that it stands held in the said decision that the LFT, coming into existence during the manufacture of LDPE b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act is a pre-requisite. If there is no fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions under Central Excise Act or Rules with intent to evade payment of duty a notice for demand of Central Excise duty for a period beyond six months cannot be issued. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Campher Drug Industries [1989 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question are concerned but he has not followed the decision of the same Bench as regards longer period. On going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the only reason for invocation of longer period is that the appellant has not taken the license and has not filed the requisite declarations. However, as observed in the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ultr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
