2004 (8) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thorities below on the ground that in the remand order of the Tribunal for re-determination of the duty demand against the appellants, it was not so directed and they could not go beyond the scope of the remand order, as per law. This very ground has been reiterated by the learned SDR before us. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the duty liability was to be re-determined by the authorities below after the remand of the case, as per law and under the law, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the cum-duty price rule. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the ratio of the law laid down in the case of (i) Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v CCE, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (T); (ii) CCE v. SIMS Friction Products, Order No. 308/2000-A; .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... manded the matter back to the Commissioner concerned for examining admissibility of the deemed Modvat credit to the appellants and for re-determining the duty payable by them and for passing appropriate order. The appellants, however, sought the modification in that order in respect of the deemed Modvat credit on the ground that the deemed Modvat credit had been already allowed to them and the remand of the case to the Commissioner concerned should be only for quantification/re-determination of the duty. The Tribunal allowed their prayer and directed the Commissioner for the re-determination of the duty. 4. During the course of re-determination of the duty, the appellants requested the adjudicating authority that benefit of reduction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hall be made and appropriate orders will be passed. The expression 'appropriate orders will be passed' is enough to indicate that the Commissioner concerned was required to pass orders, as per law, while re-determining and quantifying the duty demand against the appellants. It was not essential for the Tribunal to write in so many words in the remand order that while quantifying the duty amount, the rule of cum-duty price shall also be applied. This rule was to be applied by the Commissioner of its own as duty quantification was to be made by him, as per law. 5. In view of the discussion made above, in our view, the benefit of cum-duty price has been wrongly denied to the appellants by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X