TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order dated 16-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are manufacturer of aluminium skived tubes. They sold those tubes to various manufacturers engaged in the manufacture of car air-conditioners, oil coolers, radiators, water coolers, chillers, refrigerators etc. They claimed concessional rate of duty for the tubes under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants has contested the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) only on the question of limitation. On merits, the learned Counsel has fairly conceded that the appellants have no case for claiming the concessional rate of duty on the goods under Serial No. 11 of the Notification No. 56/95-C.E. in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Pranav Vikas (India) Ltd. v. CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. v. CCE, Final Order No. A/262/2001-NB(DB); and (iii) Tony Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Final Order No. A/1198/97-NB(DB), dated 23-12-1997. 5. On the other hand, the learned JDR, has simply reiterated the correctness of the impugned order on the question of limitation. 6. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. The duty demand for the period in dispute has been raised on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts could not be attributed to the assessee. No case law to the contrary has been referred to by the learned JDR. Therefore, following the ratio of the law laid down in all these cases and taking into account the facts of the case, referred to above, we have no option but to hold that extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Consequently, the duty demand for the disputed period must be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
