9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice. As such, there is no confirmation of demand of duty against the appellant, thus making the stay petition infructuous. In fact, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that out of the total demand of ₹ 19,54,230/- and confirmed by the Superintendent, they have already deposited an amount of ₹ 8,13,805/-. 2. In view of the above, we dispose of the stay petition and proceed to decide both the appeals - one by the appellant and the other by the Revenue. 3. It is seen that the Superintendent vide his letter, dated 25-5-2010 addressed to the appellants directed them to deposit an amount of ₹ 19,54,230/- by holding that though the appellant was paying differential duty in respect of factory gate invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ester Ltd. v. Supdtt. of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 2010 (251) E.L.T. 504 (A.P.) as relied on by the appellants involving a similar issue of demand of duty (issue of demand on account of alleged default in payment of duty in terms of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002) is relevant, wherein the Hon ble High Court discussing the relevant provisions of recovery of duty viz. Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 allowed the writ petition of the assessee (petitioner) holding that since the respondent (Department) failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the statutory provision under which the petitioner is entitled to be given an opportunity of being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts as also on limitation. The Revenue s appeal is on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand and he should have decided the matter himself. 6. We have seen the original letter issued by the Superintendent which was the cause of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). We note that by the said letter, the appellants have been directed by the Superintendent to make a deposit of the disputed amount of duty, by taking into consideration the assessable value as available at the factory gate and as available at depot sales and differential duty statement submitted by the appellant. The letter also refers to the methodology adopted by the appellants for payment of differential duty. Accordingly by the said letter, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
