9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. Today both the matters are posted for hearing applications, filed by M/s. Ashiana Ispat Ltd. and M/s. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of duty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order Nos. 72-73 (KDT) CE/JPR-1 dated 5-3-2001. As the issue involved, is in narrow compas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 and 66/2000 both dated 25-4-2000 discharged the show cause notices as time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order, held that the demands were not time barred and confirmed the duty of excise as demanded and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for considering imposition of penalties on the appellants. The ld. Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit and had set aside the Adjudication Orders only on the ground that the demands were not time-barred. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the ld. Advocate that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have considered the matter on merit as to whether the appellants are eligible for the exemption contained in Notification No. 49/97-C.E. Accordingly we set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
