9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (AR) Per: Mr. Justice G.Raghuram, President After hearing the learned Representative for the appellant/assessee and the learned Departmental Representative for the respondent/Revenue, we find that no substantive interference is called for in this appeal by the assessee in the light of following chronology of events:- (i) The assessee is a manufacturer of synthetic adhesiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng contravention of the provisions of Rules 8, Rule 11, Rule 6 and rule 10 of the CER, 2002, Revenue issued show-cause notices and eventually after a due process of law, by the adjudication order dated 19.01.2009 dropped the proceedings initiated. The adjudicating authority to support his order for aborted the proceedings, relied upon the circumstance that in identical circumstances, for the earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod did not come in the way of adjudication for the current period; that the 11 show-cause notices involved for the current period and decided by the adjudication order (dated 19.01.2009), were issued on the ground that the respondent assessee was required to pay duty on the value of aluminium scrap which were cleared without accounting and payment of duty and that the earlier order of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the assessee; no determination whether the unusable aluminium tubes were manufactured or marketed, nor a determination of the assessee's liability to duty nor the quantification of excise duty is assessed, under any head, either by the primary authority or by the appellate authority. 6. As is apparent from the appellate order, the primary order is effaced and that by itself does not impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
