9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-house laboratory and the second issue was that they did not pay duty on the goods manufactured in the appellant s workshop. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 3,61,706/- on the first issue and Rs. 1,69,236/- on the second issue (in total Rs. 5,30,942/-) was demanded. The entire amount was paid by the appellant. They replied show cause notice on 6-12-97 explaining and refuting the charges. The Joint Commissioner adjudicated the matter and confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,30,942/-. The appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and dropped the demand. The Department filed an appeal before CESTAT for the first issue i.e. duty on the finished products tested in the in-house laboratory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant did not claim the benefit under Notification No. 281/86-C.E., dated 24-4-86 but claimed benefit under Notification 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-86 in respect of moulds produced and captively consumed. Therefore, he submits that the decision taken in the Order-in-Appeal No. 240-CE/2000, dated 7-12-2000 cannot be reopened and reviewed by the Assistant Commissioner while dealing with the consequential refund claim. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order may be set aside. 3.Shri Sanyal supports the impugned order. 4.Heard both sides. I find that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Sambalpur I Division, Sambalpur has rejected the refund claim of the appellant with observations that the Commissioner (Appeals) Guwaha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,30,942/-, against the penalty as well as against the interest confirmed in the Order-in-Original No. JC/BBSR II/3-CE/2000, dated 17-2-2000, the only remedy available with the Revenue was to get the order modified by filing appeal in the Appellate Forum. In the present case, the Department did not choose to file any appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as far as the demand of Rs. 1,69,236/- which related to the production and captive consumption of moulds for repair and maintenance within the factory. Now, it was not open to the adjudicating authority or the lower appellate authority to sit in judgment on the purported ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not discussed or recorded any findings with regard to the applicability of certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
