9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The prayer in the present stay application was to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 83,72,919/- and personal penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs. 2. Arguing on the stay petition, Shri V.S. Nankani, learned Advocate, submits that vide the impugned order passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings, Modvat credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the de novo adjudication, the appellant could not produce the documentary evidence before the Commissioner. They, however, took a different plea that in the case of the assessee availing Modvat credit, the Revenue could disallow them the benefit of the Customs notification instead of directing them to reverse the Modvat credit. The Commissioner has not accepted the above plea and has remanded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en place under QABAL. He submits that the scope of remanding the proceedings was limited and the appellant was not entitled to take a new ground at all, when the same was not taken either in the original adjudication proceedings or at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the Tribunal by its earlier orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal s order was limited scope and the Commissioner was not empowered to go beyond the same seems to have prima facie force. Whether the appellant was entitled to take new different grounds in remand proceedings is an arguable issue and requires detailed consideration. Suffice it to say that the appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour inasmuch as they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
