9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NT Per Dr. D. M. Misra : This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No39(72)CE-11A/89-Collr.16/91 dated 30.12.91 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of difference in the production figures as reflected by the Appellant in their Annual Financial Accounts (Annual Statistics) for the year, 1987-88 and the figures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn case reported as Rourkela Steel Plant (SAIL) Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar : 2001 (137) ELT 566 (Tri.-Kolkata) and Steel Authority of India Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar : 2001 (47) RLT 343 (CEGAT-Kol.), for the same period involving same issue, had decided the case in their favour. The ld. Advocate submits that the facts involved in the present case as well as in the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es involved in those cases (cited above) are on identical facts to the present one. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that this Tribunal has already dealt with the similar facts and circumstances in the Appellants own case and recorded the finding as follows : 9. We agree with the submissions made by the ld. Adv. th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand is barred by limitation inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on 5-12-1990 whereas the annual financial accounts are put to circulation within a period of two months from the close of the financial year. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there was any suppression on the part of the appellants so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. In view of the foregoing the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
