9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1987 by giving benefit of exemption Notification 52/86 at concessional rate of duty. The said order was not challenged by the department and same has attained finality during impugned period. Later on, the show-cause notice issued for the same period, by the Asst. Commissioner, demanding differential duty is not sustainable in the eyes of law, order confirming the demand for the impugned period f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter a show-cause notice was issued by the Asst. Commissioner and same was adjudicated on 20.1.1987 classifying the product of the respondent. In some products, an exemption to Notification 52/86 was also given to the respondent for concessional rate of duty. In the meantime, another show-cause notice was also issued by the Range Superintendent to recover differential duty on the products ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at order, revenue is in appeal. 3. Ld. DR submitted that the adjudication order dated 20.1.1987 is bad in law as the classification approved by the adjudicating authority by giving the Notification 52/86 was not available to the respondent as per the decision of the Tribunal in respondent s own case vide order no. 1985 (22) ELT 950 and the issue of classification can be raised any moment of ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent is not entitled to get the benefit of the Notification no. 52/86, the order dated 20.1.1987 was to be challenged, which the revenue has failed to do so. Hence, without challenging the order of classification, the Revenue cannot raise the demand for the same period. 6. If at all, it can be done for the subsequent period only. In that event, the order confirming the demand for the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
