9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. For the purpose of hearing this appeal the appellant is required to pre-deposit duty amount of Rs. 1,02,375/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the Commissioner. 2. The brief facts, discussed in the impugned order are that the appellants are manufacturers of Cotton yarn and Polyester cotton blended yarn falling under Chapter He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is their contention that these reports and technical opinion have not been considered by both the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel submits that as it is not a speaking order and no findings have been recorded on the material evidence filed and therefore the matter is required to be remanded back for de novo consideration. He also submits that the statement of Shri C. Damodarasamy. Manager of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 641 (T). 3. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. SDR opposed the prayer. He submits that the appellants are required to have cleared the waste under Rule 57F(18) by paying the duty. On a specific query from the Bench as to whether the Department has any say on the appellant s evidence with regard to SITRA s report, the ld. SDR submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ste . In order to establish that the item was waste and it is dutiable and marketable as a waste. Revenue ought to have produced the evidence in this regard or should have looked into the evidence produced by the appellants. Prima facie there is a violation of principle of natural justice. In view of this, we grant waiver of the pre-deposit and stay its recovery. 5. As the issue lies in a short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
