9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 319/2005 dt. 24-8-2005. 2. None appeared for the appellant. It is also noticed that the appellant was not represented when the case was listed on 7-12-2006. There were requests by the appellant when the case was listed on 23-3-07, 3-4-07 and again on 4-4-2007. Today also nobody is present in spite of notice. 3. Heard the ld. DR for the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not challenged the assessment order and he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2004 (173) E.L.T. 518 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Priya Blue Industries v. CC reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145. 4. The appellant submits that there was no separate assessment order when the goods were removed from the warehouse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment is a must to give effect to the provisions of Section 15. It is also to be appreciated that Section 2(2) of the Customs Act defines the term assessment as follows "assessment includes provisional assessment, reassessment and any order of assessment in which the duty assessed is nil". Therefore, it will be reasonable to conclude that there is a need for reassessment in respect of warehoused g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
