9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appearance: Shri H.B. Negi, SDR for the appellant Shri P.K. Shetty, Advocate for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Sandeep Enterprises is an appeal against the impugned order for demand of duty holding that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dropping the penalty on the respondents. 2. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and waived the penalty on the assessees and all the co-noticees. Aggrieved from the order of confirmation of duty and interest, the assessee is in appeal. Revenue is in appeal for dropping the penalty on the assessee and all the co-noticees. Revenue is also contesting the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for remanding the same for all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtaken by the assessee amount to manufacture or not and neither was raised in the show-cause notice, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that as they have not raised this issue before the adjudicating authority, it cannot be raised at this stage. He reiterated the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. He further submitted that as the Commissioner has confirmed that duty aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 'whether the activity undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacture or not.' The assessee shall present their case before the adjudicating authority. 7. In view of the above observation, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to consider the issue afresh and thereafter to pass the order as per law. 8. We also find that the period relates to 2001, therefore, we dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
