9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the demand of Rs. 2,26,80,122/- has not been considered by the Commissioner, plausible and sufficient - Held that:- Duty demand of Rs. 2,13,09,972/- was dropped, except Rs. 13,70,150/- against M/s Sunita Ispat (P) Ltd., and the penalty of like amount. The appellant deposited Rs. 3,35,023/-. The CESTAT required the appellant to make a further deposit of Rs. 6 lacs as a condition for waiver of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in demanding Rs. Six lacs in compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. on the basis of demand which was not raised in the show cause notice and the reasoning given in the notice for raising the demand of Rs. 2,26,80,122/- has not been considered by the Commissioner, plausible and sufficient? (ii) Whether the Hon ble Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing? 3. It is submitted by Shri A.P. Mathur, appearing for the appellant that the CESTAT has committed an error in recording a finding, that the question, as to whether the demand of duty is based on unaccounted purchase of scrap could be confirmed, when in the show cause notice no such duty was demanded. 4. In the present case, we find that the duty demand of Rs. 2,13,09,972/- was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
