9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR, R.K. Chowdhury assisted by B.N. Pal, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri A. Madhav Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides at length in respect of these nine appeals, four of which have been filed by the Department and five of them have been filed by M/s. Dharampal and Satyapal Ltd. and others. We find that the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se in terms of the said Order of the Hon ble Supreme Court, and the lower Appellate Authority is not correct in not upholding the Orders-in-Original. 2. Shri A. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents and vice versa, does not challenge the duty-liability, but states that interest is not payble for the entire period in view of the Order-in-Appeal subsisting in favour of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the very same impunged Notification No. 32/99-C.E. and its retrospective amendment in respect of the impugned goods have been considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The constitutional validity of such retrospective amendment has been upheld as also the other provisions introduced by Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003 including the provisions regarding non-maintainability of appeals before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after finalisation of assessment, the demands pursuant to the retrospective amendment cannot be sustained. We further find that it is not possible to conclude from the cited judgments that interest is not payable from the date specified in view of the retrospective amendment. 3. In view of our findings above, we are of the view that the lower Appellate Authority was not justified in allowing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
