2017 (10) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the respondents were regularly clearing computers parts namely, shell assembly / chassis assembly by claiming the benefit of Notification No.16/2000 (Sl. No. 230) dated 1.3.2000 and 21/2002 (Sl. No. 276) dated 1.3.2002. The respondents had cleared all such Bills of Entry under green channel facility. It was the case of the department that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... E.L.T. 17 (S.C.). 4.   We have heard submissions made by the department and perused the records. On behalf of the respondent Ms. Poorni Viswanathan, employee of the respondent company appeared and argued the matter. In para 26 as well as 27 of the impugned order, the Commissioner has discussed in detail for arriving at the conclusion that the show cause notice is barred by limitation. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gibility of the notification benefit and extended the same. The Commissioner has thereupon arrived at the conclusion that no suppression of facts can be alleged upon the respondents. On going through the records, we find no ground to take a different view. The appeal filed by the department is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X