9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d April, 1995 to September, 1997, they had under-valued the goods (manufactured by undertaking job work on raw materials supplied by TELCO) cleared, on payment of duty, to M/s. TELCO and consequently there was a short-payment of duty. The department accordingly issued Show Cause Notice dated 25-9-1998 raising demand of duty of Rs. 6,58,013/- on the appellants. The notice invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act on the basis of alleged suppression of facts by the party. The notice also proposed to confiscate land, building, machinery etc. under Rule 173Q and also to impose penalty on the appellants under Section 11AC of the Act. The proposals were contested. The original authority which adjudicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty etc. Aggrieved by this, the department filed appeal No. E/1094/2002. The assessee filed appeal No. E/649/2002 against the duty confirmation part of the order dated 26-11-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The 4th appeal before us is, again, an appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is appeal No. E/1757/2000, which has been filed against another order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 25-1-2000 directing issue of Rule 57E certificate to the assessee. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise had turned down the assessee's request for issue of Rule 57E certificate in respect of the duty (Rs. 1,50,566/-) paid by them and the party had preferred an appeal against the same, which was allowed as above. 2. We have hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside the original authority's order for penalty under Section 11AC, interest under Section 11AB and redemption fine under Rule 173Q. Referring to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for issuing Rule 57E certificate to the assessee, he submitted that, under the amended provisions of Rule 57E, it was not permissible for the proper officer to issue such certificate as the differential amount of duty was paid by the party pursuant to a demand raised by the department by alleging suppression of facts, misstatement of facts etc. against them. In the instant case, according to learned Jt. CDR, the Commissioner (Appeals) had himself, in separate order, held that the assessee had suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty and, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h on that issue and confirmed the demand of duty against M/s. Devan Auto Engineers. He did not examine any other issue. Clearly this was not what was contemplated under the remand order. We must therefore set aside the order dated 26-11-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter once again to him for a decision on all the issues in terms of our earlier remand order dated 24-8-2000. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal No. E/1094/2002 will stand allowed by way of remand. We note that, consequent to the present order of remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have to examine the question whether a penalty under Section 11AC is liable to be imposed on the assessee as also the question whether interest under Section 11AB is liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
