TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... By taking note of the fact that the Commissioner of Central excise Kolkata vide his different order for different period has dropped the demand falling outside the normal period of limitation and such order of the Commissioner stands accepted by the Revenue, the Tribunal also granted relief on the limitation aspect in their case reported as Interscape. Inasmuch as the appellants have already be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he point of limitation. The dispute relates as to whether the furniture manufactured by the appellant would attract duty or not. The appellant was not paying duty by treating the same as handicraft. 2. However the demand was raised against them for the period April 1993 to October 1994 by issuance of showcause notice in May 1995 on the ground that furniture cannot be considered as handicraft so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble Supreme Court was given on 12.03.1995 and the period involved in the present appeal is prior to the said date. As such the demand by making allegation of suppression and malafide cannot be held to be sustainable. 4. After hearing the ld. AR for the revenue, we note that the issue on limitation was considered by the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for different period. By taking note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
