9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T)]. In this appeal filed by M/s. Kapoor Enterprises, the order-in-original, dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, is under challenge. 2. At the very outset, Shri R. Swaminathan, Consultant, submitted that for the subsequent period, referred to in para 6 of the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority has left it to the jurisdictional Asstt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at, Final Order Nos. 52-53/2000-D, dated 28-1-2000 in support of his submission that the quantification of demand was the job of the adjudicating authority. He prays for the remand of the matter. 3. Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, submits that the order passed by the adjudicating authority is detailed and contains reasonings for his view. As regards the submission of the learned Consultant with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed in the absence of complete specification of the demand, we consider that this matter needs to be re-examined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise who should discuss all the submissions made by the appellants and then pass a self-contained speaking order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to both the sides to present their respective contentions. 5. Wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
