9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri A. P. Mathur, Advocate, for Respondent ORDER The present appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 118-CE/LKO/2009 dated 11/05/2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein were engaged in the manufacture and sale of Electrical Panel Boards falling under Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said Show Cause Notice dated 30/12/2003 was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. 42/Addl./2006 dated 21/11/2006, wherein the respondents contended before Original Authority that the burden was on the Department to prove that assessee has suppressed the facts. The Original Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 13,31,552/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Factory Versus Collector of Central Excise, Andhra Pradesh reported at 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S. C.) and set aside the said Order-in-Original No. 42/Addl./2006 dated 21/11/2006. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal dated 11/05/2009 Revenue has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The main grounds of Revenue is that the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Suga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (Supra) is that once a Show Cause Notice is issued by invoking the provisions for extended period on the basis of suppression of facts then the same facts cannot be come grounds for issue of subsequent Show Cause Notice invoking proviso for extended period. Since the entire records on the basis of which both the Show Cause Notices were issued came within the knowle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
