1 IN HE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (LODG) NO. 31 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur Commissionerate & Anr. ... Appellant Vs. M/s. Cabot India Limited. ... Respondent Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Manoj Sanklecha with Ms. Nandinee Mayekar, i/b. Little & Co., Advocates, for the respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 14th July, 2009. P.C. 1. The respondent herein had purchased certain inputs from National Organic Chemicals India Ltd. (NOCIL). Both appeals were for consideration before the learned CEGAT. In the appeal filed by NOCIL, the record will show that a classification list had been filed under sub-heading 2713.30 which was duly approved. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that there was no allegation 2 that the product in question was not correctly described in the said classification. The other issue was the extended period of limitation. It was argued before the learned Tribunal by Counsel for NOCIL that the subsequent show cause notice which was dated 28.4.1998 did not disclose any additional facts or evidence and that while issuing the show cause notice for the period November 1995 to July 1996, the Department was fully aware of the facts involved in the show cause notices. Reliance was placed on several Judgments as recorded in the Judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal applied the ratio of (i) Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE, AP – 2006 TIOL 56 (SC),(ii) Pashwa Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi 2005 (189 ELT 257 (SC), (iii) O.K. Play (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III – 2005 (180) ELT 300 (SC) and (iv) ECE Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi – 2004 (164) ELT 236 (SC) and held that the demand for extended period is not sustainable. 2. Insofar as M/s. Cabot India is concerned, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the issue of taking Modvat Credit of differential duty. Insofar as the normal period of limitation is concerned, there was no finding by the Adjudicating Authority that there was any suppression or mis-statement nor there was any allegation in the show cause notice to that effect. The learned Tribunal also recorded that even for the extended period, there was no 3 suppression or mis-statement and the demand for the extended period had been set aside. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the respondent herein. 3. In our opinion, considering the findings of fact recorded and the reliance placed on the Judgments of the Supreme Court, the question of law does not arise and consequently the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)