TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 65,043/-. From the above record, it is clearly evident that audit report was communicated by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent on 6.8.2004 only demanding differential duty of ₹ 65,043/- whereas the show cause notice was issued on 6.10.2005. Therefore, it is clearly evident that there is no suppression of facts. The department was well aware of the facts on 6.8.2004 itself when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. E/753/2006 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2015 - R Periasami, Member (T),J. For the Appellant : Mr M Kannan, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr K P Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: R Periasami: Consequent upon the Hon'ble High Court's order dt. 6.11.2013, the appeal is taken up. The Hon'ble High Court, Madras set aside the Tribunal's Final Order No.84/2009 dt. 16.1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is very much essential for the purpose of deciding as to whether the show cause notice dated 06.10.2005 is barred by limitation as per actual period of limitation mentioned in Section 11(A) of the said Act or the appellant is entitled to get extended period of limitation. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding the said aspect, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that they have paid excise duty on the lesser value instead of working out correct depreciation value and accordingly demanded differential duty of ₹ 65,043/-. From the above record, it is clearly evident that audit report was communicated by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent on 6.8.2004 only demanding differential duty of ₹ 65,043/- whereas the show cause notice was issued on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
