9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Bhart Raichandani, Advocate for Appellant Shri Kishori Lal, SDR for Respondents Per B.S.V. Murthy The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of angles and channels etc. on jobwork basis. In respect of the angles and channels manufactured in their factory, the steel scrap which arise during the course of such manufacture were sold by the appellant on payment of duty. However, value of such scrap was not included while arriving at the determination of assessable value for payment of duty. Duty demand has been proposed for non-inclusion of value of steel scrap for the period 08/2003 to 03/2007 vide show cause notice issued on 02.09.2008. The original adjudicating authority confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Engineering Works vs CCE - 2007 (212) ELT 295 (S.C.) came to the conclusion that value of scrap need not to be included. 3. The learned DR on the other hand submitted that the decisions cited by the ld. Counsel in support of his contention that there were decisions in favour of the assessee during the relevant time and, therefore, extended period cannot be extended, is not correct. He submits that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. came in September 2010 whereas the dispute is prior to 2007. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that there is always a time lag between the duty demands whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons in 2002-03 would support the case of the appellant. Therefore, we consider that the appellant has been able to make a very strong prima facie case in their favour for waiver of pre-deposit of duty. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the case on merits and rejected the appeal because of non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty. We have considered that it would be appropriate to decide the stay application as well as the appeals at this stage itself. Accordingly, we allow the stay petition unconditionally and since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the case on merits, we remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh without insisting on any pre-deposit of the amount dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
