9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T)]. Heard both sides. 2. As a preliminary point ld. Advocate Dr. Samir Chakraborty has pointed out that there are 2 periods involved in the present case which are as follows : 1. 1-3-1982 to 27-2-1986 2. 28-3-1986 to 31-10-1990. He submits that show cause notice itself accepts that the assessment for both the aforesaid periods are provisional. In this connection he relies on sub-par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al s judgment in the case of Uptron India Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 848. This judgment of Tribunal also refers to as Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Union of India v. Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.). 3. Ld. Advocate further submits that an important issue involved in the present matter was regarding classificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter. 4. Opposing the contentions ld. SDR Shri T. Prem Kumar submits that the question of classification is not involved herein in the impugned order. The show cause notice seeks to finalise provisional assessments in respect of captively used shells and slides and also seeks to demand duty on non-inclusion of margin of profit on such captive consumption of shells and slides. He also submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the authorities action and they cannot take advantage of their own action in the [fate] of the settled position of law. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by remand for de novo adjudication by the adjudicating authority directing him to finalise the provisional assessments on all issues so that there is the consolidated liability of or refund to, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
