TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th a show cause notice earlier on 27.04.2010 and as such subsequent show cause notices issued by invoking the longer period of limitation are not sustainable. However, a part of the demand covered by the show cause notice dated 26.03.2012 and the entire demand covered by the second show cause notice dated 08.01.2012 falls within the limitation period. As such while setting aside the demand for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal were selling their final product through various consignment agents. As per the provisions of section 4 read with Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, they were required to pay duty in respect of the goods sold through consignment agents, at the price at which goods were being sold by the said consignment agents. However, they were discharging their duty liability at the factory gate price. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on 27.04.2010, raising identical demands for the period 2005-06 to 2006-07. As such ld. Advocate submits that the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue and the subsequent issuance of the show cause notice raising demands for the past period, by invoking the longer period, would be clearly barred by limitation. 5. Ld.AR appearing for the Revenue concedes on the factual position th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier on 27.04.2010 and as such subsequent show cause notices issued by invoking the longer period of limitation are not sustainable. However, we find that a part of the demand covered by the show cause notice dated 26.03.2012 and the entire demand covered by the second show cause notice dated 08.01.2012 falls within the limitation period. As such while setting aside the demand for the longer peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
