TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944 on the basis of the order dated 19-7-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E 525 04-C. The following substantial questions of law have been sought to be raised : "(i) Whether the respondent, having once exercised the option to work under Rule 96ZP(3) on 9-9-1997, can change their option within the same financial year especially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice when the same was issued by way of giving an opportunity of hearing before finalising the provisional annual capacity order dated 21-11-1997 of the appellant?" 2.It remains undisputed that a show cause notice dated 1-4-1998 under Rule 96ZP(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity 'the Rules') was issued raising demand for duty for the disputed period. Another n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee demanding differential duty in respect of the afore-mentioned period. According to Rules, the period of limitation for adjudication in respect of raising the demand for differential duty is six months. The first show cause notice has not been adjudicated and the second show cause notice has been issued after about four years which is clearly time-barred. Therefore, we find that no substantia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
