TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended period of limitation and not any prior period –W.P. rejected in view of smallness of amount - C.E.C. No. 15 of 2005 (O & M) - - - Dated:- 29-8-2006 - [Order]- The Revenue has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') praying the issuance of a direction to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88 to June 1988. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, the Collector vide Order-in-Original confirmed demand of excise duty of Rs. 79,884.31 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules (for short, 'the Rules') read with Section 11A of the Act by invoking the extended period of limitation available under proviso to Section 11A of the Act and also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice having been issued on June 24, 1993. Total demand in the present case is Rs. 79,884.31 for a period of six months and as per rough estimate, the same would be around Rs. 13,000/- for one month, even if it was accepted that one month period is within extended period of limitation, if rightly invoked. 5. Keeping in view, the smallness of amount involved in the present case, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
