ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Being aggrieved with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard Shri J.R. Madhiam, learned JDR for the Revenue and Shri P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant for the respondent company.
3. After going through the impugned Order, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order of the lower authorities on merits as also on the point of limitation. It has been held by him that the allegation against the respondents that resins have been, in fact, manufactured by the respondents, but have been shown to have been manufactured in the factory of M/s. RGS Industries, is factually incorrect, inasmuch as M/s. RGS Industries were a legal separate entity engaged in the manufacture of resins. He has also observed that the show cause notice for the period from 1.11.86 to 30.4.87 has been issued on 19.9.88. Inasmuch as M/s. RGS Industries have been filing monthly returns and the Revenue was aware of the existence of the same, the notice is barred on limitation.
4. In their memo of appeal, the Revenue, though challenged the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits, has not submitted anything on the point of limitation. There is a conclusive finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Revenue on the point of limitation, which remains unchallenged by the Department. As such, I am of the opinion that the Revenue’s appeal is required to be rejected on this short point. Ordered accordingly.