9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, II Division. In the said Order the Asst. Commissioner dropped the following demands on the ground that the assessments were never provisional. (a) Rs. 15,46,773/- for the period 1-4-1989 to 12-9-1990 (b) Rs. 48,46,178/- for the period 1-11-1993 to 31-3-1996 The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order gave a finding that the Asst. Commissioner erred in dropping the above demands and held that the appellants are liable to pay the above amounts. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (A), hence they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. S/Shri L. Goyal and T. Ramesh, learned advocates appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Reddy, learned JDR appeared f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating the reasons for the assessment to be provisional. There should be a bond and bank guarantee. The Commissioner (A) failed to see this point. (iv) The appellant has rightly pointed out that the Executive Commissioner has not set out the grounds of appeal to be referred to Commissioner (A) as contemplated under Section 35E(2). Failure to do so is fatal to the whole proceedings. 5. The learned JDR reiterated the findings of Commissioner (A). 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. No doubt Revenue was aggrieved over the Order-in-Original dated 11-8-1997 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise. Hence, the Commissioner issued an Authorization Order No. 7/98, dated July 1998 authorizing the Asst. Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the Asst. Commissioner had erred in holding that the assessments were not provisional has not given any evidence to show that the assessments were actually provisional in the form of bond executed under Rule 9B. There is only a reference to some revised pricelist and the admission of the assessee that the assessments were provisional from 1-4-1988 and this is not sufficient. It is very clear that there is no evidence to show that the assessments were provisional. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the impugned Order-in-Appeal which has been passed even without the grounds of appeal. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
