9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Heard both sides. 2. At the outset, Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, learned Jt. CDR appearing for the Department makes the following preliminary submissions in regard to the question of maintainabilily of reference made to the Larger Bench :- (1) The decision of the Larger Bench will have no impact on the decision in the de novo proceedings before the original authority. This is for the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the parties own case as reported in 2007 (207) E.L.T. 149 (Tri. - Chennai) in the case of M/s. Premier Footwear Products (P) Ltd. Pollachi v. CCE, Coimbatore. The period covered in the case settled by the CESTAT Chennai is 15-12-1998 to 31-3-2003. Therefore the period under consideration in this case i.e. 1-9-2002 to 30-1-2003 is covered by the order of Hon. CESTAT, Chennai. (3) The Final Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Phoenix International Ltd. v. CC, Raigod [2002 (134) E.L.T. 593 (S.C.)] was already in the public domain when Final Order No. 817-819/2006 dated 31-8-2006 came to be passed. The facts in both the cases are also dissimilar. The non-consideration of this judgment by CESTAT, Chennai cannot therefore be a ground for reference to a Larger Bench. 3. Fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubramanian appearing for the appellants who confirms that there was no clearance of strap-plaps during the normal period. 5. Considering the submissions made and taking note of the fact that the impugned goods have not been cleared during the normal period of limitation and that the Division Bench has already taken a decision that no duty is chargeable for the extended period, we agree with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
