9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral)]. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The learned Collector (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority demanding duty of Rs. 28,632.20 on the pharmaceutical dry yeast cleared during 1-9-1987 to 28-2-1988 on the ground that no proper demand had been raised for this amount. The brief facts are that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent was asked to show cause as to why duty of Rs. 61,593.60 should not be demanded from them on the basis of rate of duty as applicable to the goods falling under Heading 2102.10, in the event of the application preferred by the Department being accepted by the Collector (Appeals). 2. Shri P. Sundararaju, the learned SDR appearing for the Department has pleaded that inasmuch as the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department by initiating proceedings under Section 35E(4) and the said classification appears to have been later revised by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The short question that arises for consideration is whether a proper demand could be taken to have been raised under Section 11A by issue of show cause notice dated 7-3-1988 and by corrigendum to the same notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the circumstances, notice for the purpose of demand could be said to have been properly communicated to the Respondent only on the issue of corrigendum dated 5-8-1988. The only course available for the Department was to file an application before the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35E(4) pending decision, to safeguard the Revenue and no fault therefore could be found for the issue of demand n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
