SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/5844 |
Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
Decided On | Jul-17-1990 |
Reported in | (1990)LC478Tri(Delhi) |
Appellant | Steel Authority of India |
Respondent | Collector of C. Ex. |
Therefore, this part of the impugned order is upheld by us.
2. The second point agitated by the appellants before the Appellate Collector was that the demand was barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued after expiry of six months. On this point Shri Sanjay Grover, learned advocate before us has argued that the period covered by the show cause notice dated 8-2-1978 issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules was May, 1973 to June, 1975. The duty demanded for that period was Rs. 21,268/-. He has argued that there was no suppression of facts by the appellants as the fact that they were charging different prices from their customers depending on the distance between the factory and the customers' premises was declared in the price lists. Hence, entire demand is time-barred. We observe from the impugned order that the Appellate Collector disposed of the point of limitation stating that the plea of time-bar was irrelevant inasmuch as the order related only to fixation of assessable value.
This finding of the Appellate Collector is not tenable. Although, the learned Senior Departmental Representative has argued before us that DD2 was issued on 24-12-1976, before issuing the show cause notice, the issue of DD2 does not protect the time limit prescribed under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules for issuing show cause notice. Even otherwise, the DD2 was also issued after expiry of six months' limitation. In the circumstances, we hold that the entire demand for duty was barred by limitation.
3. The appeal filed before us is disposed of in the above terms. The appeal is partly allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.