9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. This reference application was argued by Shri A. Ashokan for the Revenue and Shri J.F. Pochkhanawala, Senior Counsel for the respondents. 2. The issue involved in the dispute between the assessees and the department is as to what were the eligible inputs for the manufacture of glass bottles. On 11-7-1986 the assessees were informed that certain inputs claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice issued in 1997 proposes disallowance on the ground that goods are not inputs but does not indicate as to why they cannot be considered to be inputs. In addition to this, it is alleged that the appellant has misdeclared the goods and availed of inadmissible Modvat credit. When the question as to whether these goods were eligible inputs or not was itself to be decided, we do not see how the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we pointed out to Shri J.F. Pochkhanawala, the ld. Senior Advocate for the appellant that in view of the amount of credit involved, and the Departmental instructions, it may not be within the competence of the Assistant Commissioner to issue notice or adjudicate on a notice issued, he says that he will not challenge any notice or order on the ground that it is issued or passed by an officer other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to inception of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules is admissible under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. (2) Whether when the issue is decided by the Commissioner after following proper procedure is required to be re-adjudicated by lower authority. 4. We observe that the learned Commissioner has not understood the scope of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For invoking that sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
