9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This case is arising in a second round of litigation. In the first round, this Bench had remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for requantification of duty after considering the assessee's plea for grant of SSI benefit under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Pursuant to the rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for vacating the penalty on the ground that, during the material period, they were under a bona fide belief that they could clear waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) without payment of duty for regranulation and return of the granules for further use in the manufacture of PVC pipes and (c) the bank guarantee was enforced beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, wherein, according to the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Bench earlier was for requantification of duty. Such an exercise necessarily involves the question whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act. Though this benefit was specifically prayed for, it was not granted. It is claimed that the show-cause notice did not propose confiscation of the seized goods. The adjudicating authority appropriated the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine and, for that matter, no appropriation from the bank guarantee amount. Otherwise, it is up to the authority to consider afresh the question whether redemption fine has to be imposed and, if so, to what extent. The appeal is disposed of on these terms. The penalty related issue also shall be addressed afresh.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
