2007 (5) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (J)]. This application filed by the Department (Appellant) is for early disposal of their appeal. We have heard learned SDR. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 2. After examining the records and considering the submissions of learned SDR, we find that the short question arising in the case is whether the Assistant Commi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Central Excise proposing to recover duty of Rs. 15.00 lakhs (with appropriate interest) from the party under Rule 96ZO r/w Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The demand was contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chengalpet Division, passed Order-in-Original No. 51/2001, dated 31-12-2001 confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 15.00 lakhs agains .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al Excise. The present appeal of the Revenue is against this decision of the appellate Commissioner. 4. The ground raised in the appeal is that, as the demand of duty was under Rule 96ZO, Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was competent to adjudicate the case as per the above Circular of the Board. This ground cannot be sustained inasmuch as, after a perusal of the Circular, we have not found anythi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X