1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.165 OF 2007 M/s.Mukand Ltd. ...Appellant. vs. 1.The Commissioner of Central Excise & others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.P.V.Patankar, for Appellant. Mr.K.R.Chaudhary, for Respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 10nd July, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellant at length. According to him, three substantial questions of law arise viz. (i) The statement of co-noticee should not have been relied on because the appellant did not cross- examine him on it ? We do not find any substance in this, because the statement was recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, which is deemed to be a 2 judicial proceedings. (ii) The second contention urged was that the finding recorded is beyond the scope of show cause notice, the learned Counsel could not substantiate this ground on the basis of the record. (iii) Lastly it was urged that the show cause notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. Admittedly, the transactions are of the year 2000-01. The show cause notice was issued in the year 2004. The authorities have held the limitation under Section 11-A of the Act is five years, because there were wrong invoices issued. There is a clear finding of fact recorded that the description of the goods on the invoice did not match the goods which were in question. Taking overall view of the matter, there is no question of law arises. Hence, the appeal is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) ---