2003 (10) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After dispensing with the conditions of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we take up the appeal itself for final disposal as the issue stands covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. 2. Vide the impugned order, Commissioner adjudicated two show cause notices for two different periods i.e. February, 1997 to February, 1999 and from February, 1997 to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r value from depots. He submits that the Revenue s appeal filed against the said order has been dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. A224. He also draws our attention to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Savita Chemicals v. CCE, Mumbai - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 394 (T) which is to the same effect. Shri. K.L. Bablani, ld. JCDR further submits that with eff .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e applicability of Section 11D as neither the Show Cause notice nor the order invokes that. As regards the duty confirmed under Section 11A, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the above referred decisions of the Tribunal. The judgment in the case of Castrol India Ltd. also has the seal of approval of the Honourable Supreme Court in as much as the appeal filed by the Commissioner has bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X