9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Sanjay Hasija, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Boilers, falling under Chapter Heading No. 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the department had gathered information that the appellant had wrongly availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med. The confirmed duty amount already deposited by the appellant was appropriated in the said order. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune - II vide the impugned order dated 28.06.2006 has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed on the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The learned Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s squarely barred by limitation of time in terms of the proviso appended to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inasmuch as the period in dispute was from June 2000 to September 2001, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 27.06.2005. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for Revenue has supported the findings recorded in the impugned order for sustaining the adjudged deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case had enclosed the annexure, mentioning the details of projects executed by the appellant. On examination of the earlier show cause notice dated 30.03.2005, we find that the same projects were also involved therein, for whom the appellant had executed the assigned job. Since, the adjudication order passed in confirming the proposed duty demand in the said notice dated 30.03.2005 was set aside b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
