9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sekhon, Member (T)]. This appeal is against the duty demand determined for a period of 6 months from the date of amending the classfication list approved under Rule 173B which was found to be required to be done as the appellant had failed to intimate the actual use of the item in question in telecommunication system. 2. We have heard both sides and considered the submissions and find - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that provisions of Section 11A have not been invoked and demand is not made under Section 11A. The demand is made only under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules. To attract sub-rule (2), the goods should have been removed in contravention of sub-rule (1) i.e. clandestinely and without assessment as held in N.B. Sanjana v. Elphinstone Spg. Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 399) (S.C.) = AI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, without going into the other aspects of the appeal on merits which the Learned Advocate for the appellants has not pressed before us and also the question of retrospective demand for the period of 6 months which has also been foregone by the Learned Advocate, we would find that demand in this case has not been determined as provided under provisions of Section 11A and therefore the demand canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
