9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r per: S. Kalyanam, Member (J)]. - This appeal filed by the Department is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 30-11-1988 modifying the order of the original authority viz. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hosur, and restricting the demand against the respondent to a sum of Rs. 1,18,499-37. 2. Shri Gregory, the learned SDR, submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, has indicated that the same was provisional for the purpose of cess. 3. Shri Raghavan, the learned counsel, vehemently contended that initially there was a demand for payment of differential duty in a sum of Rs. 4,54,684.33 from the respondents for the period September, 1985 to February, 1986 under a show cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise on 25-7-1986 and this demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Collector (Appeals) has not considered them. 4. We have considered the submissions made before us. The original authority in his order has observed as under : "The provisional assessments are yet to be finalised. Since the assessments are provisional, the demand is not hit by time bar. In this view the corrigendum issued by the Range Superintendent restricting the demand to Rs. 1,18,499.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as given in the impugned order, we have no other alternative except to remand the matter to the learned Collector (Appeals) for reconsideration of the issue and giving a speaking order with reference to the evidence on record after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
