9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verified from the first page and the last page of the show-cause notice itself. Therefore, it is very strange and also not understandable how the Revenue has come to the conclusion that the show-cause has been issued on 19.06.1998. Therefore, the ground taken by the Revenue to file the appeal is totally frivolous and on this ground itself the demand is not sustainable. I further find that in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER : Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. This is a 2 nd round of litigation. In the earlier round this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to re-quantify the duty for a period of six months after allowing the benefit of modvat credit, for which purpose the appellants would produce the relevant documentary evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was issued on 19.06.1998. Therefore, the period for the demand should be from 19.12.1997. If that is to be taken as the date for considering the limitation, then there will be a difference in the duty demand. He further submits that the learned Commissioner, in the remand proceedings has not considered the issue as per the Annexure B to the show-cause notice. The respondent has not produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for a period of six months prior to the date of show-cause notice after allowing the benefit of modvat credit. The Tribunal's order has been accepted by the Revenue as no appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the said order. Therefore, the question of demanding differential duty for which the respondent has not shown any proof, is not sustainable because the issue has become final in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
