ORDER

1. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 4-3-1999. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PARTS USED FOR REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD ARE EXCISABLE. THIS QUESTION IS ANSWERED BY A DECISION OF THIS COURT RENDERED ON 25-3-2003 IN CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 3643-44 OF 1999T. ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THAT DECISION, IT IS HELD THAT DUTY IS PAYABLE ON THE PARTS.

2. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE A FURTHER QUESTION ARISES I.E. WHETHER IN RESPECT OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE CONCERNED DATED 27-5-1994, THE RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 11-A OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944. THE TRIBUNAL NEGATIVED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND HELD THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSION AND, THEREFORE, THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION WAS AVAILABLE.

3. SOME FEW FACTS NECESSARY FOR A DECISION ON THIS POINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

THE APPELLANTS WERE USING PARTS, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE MODVAT CREDIT WAS AVAILED. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT PAID DUTY, THEY DID NOT REVERSE THE CREDIT. THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES ON 28-5-1993 AND 4-11-1993. BY THESE TWO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES THE APPELLANTS