9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Space Law Assosiates JUDGEMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The divergent findings of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum, arising out of order dated 16.12.2002 in original No.17/2002, which has been reversed by the CESTAT, South Zonal, Bangalore, by order dated 02.12.2005 in Appeal No. E/229/03, are called in question in this appeal. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel appearing for the parties. 6. We are of the view that the substantial questions of law framed earlier has to be re-framed. Accordingly, by consent of both the parties, the following substantial questions of law are re-framed to answer this appeal. i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal is justified in holding that the demand of duty on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2000. Accordingly, it was adjudicated and penalty of Rs.8,43,509/- was also levied under Section 11AC and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- has also been imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by reversing the order of the Commissioner on the ground that when the goods are damage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inputs, it cannot be used for final product and When the respondent has claimed the insurance, we are at a loss to understand how the claim of the appellant can be considered as premature. 10. Be that as it may, when the demand is in respect of the period from January 1997 to November 2000, when the appeal is disposed of in the year 2005, at least the Tribunal was required to examine, whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
