2018 (8) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : Sh. Hardik Modh (advocate) For Respondent : Sh. K. Kinariwala (AR) ORDER Per : Mr. Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Printed Paper Label and Printed Film Labels fall under chapter 48-49 respectively of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In pursuance of an intelligence to the effect that the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appellant, therefore, the appellant are before us. 2. Sh. Hardik Modh Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that they are not contesting the levy of duty on merit, however, he submits that they have a strong case on limitation, hence, the demand for the longer period will not sustain. He submits that the appellant right from 2003 made various correspondence fro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... judgments: Sudio Printal (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-I-2004 9172) ELT 402 (Tri. Del) Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Vadodara-2003 (152) ELT 262 (SC) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad-II 2003 (161) ELT 251 (Tri. Mum) S K Enterprises vs CCE Delhi 2004 (175) ELT 686 (Tri. Del) Komal Trading Co. vs CC (Import), Mumbai- 2014 (301) ELT 506 (Tri. Mum) 3. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appellant have produced ample material in support of their defence on the ground of time bar but the Ld. Commissioner in his findings stated as under: ................................................................................................................................................................................. ................. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same and concurred with the adjudicating authority. Therefore as regard the limitation, the Ld. Commissioner has not passed a speaking order. We are, therefore, of the view that the Ld. Commissioner must re-consider the issue of limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to re-consider the issue on limitation. However, the issu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X