9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is already covered by the show cause notice - The argument of the Revenue that when the order-in-original dated 21-10-1997 was set aside and the matter was remanded back, the adjudicating officer was entitled to confirm the demand even in excess of Rs. 8,50,079/- cannot be accepted because, the remand was restricted to the confirmation of the duty liability amounting to Rs. 8,50,079/- Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand is already covered by the show cause notice? 3. In this case, by order-in-original dated 21-10-1997 the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Satara confirmed the duty liability to the extent of Rs. 8,50,079/-, although the assessee was called upon to show cause as to why the duty demand amounting to Rs. 11,77,971/- should not be recovered from the assessee. Admittedly, the Revenue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, the CESTAT by the impugned order dated 16-9-2010 held that the remand order was restricted to imposition of duty amounting to Rs. 8,50,079/- and, therefore, the assessing officer was not justified in confirming the duty demand in excess of Rs. 8,50,079/-. 4. As noted earlier, the Revenue had admittedly not filed any appeal against the order-in-original dated 21-10-1997. As the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
