9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Commissioner’s Order dated 24-1-1997 has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 17-9-2004 and appeal to Tribunal against that order had also been dismissed, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not reopen the finalization of provisional assessment on merits by observing that the Order-in-Original dated 24-1-1997 of the Assistant Commissioner finalizing the provisional assessment was ex parte order or that the same was not correct. Moreover, since the assessments were provisional, the limitation period under Section 11A(1) would not apply. - Decided against assessee. - E/2687/2005-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/50302/2015-EX (BR) - Dated:- 4-2-2015 - Shri Rakesh Kumar (T) and S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) Shri Ran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise quantified the amount of differential duty as ₹ 24,84,392/- and issue a show cause notice dated 12-12-1997, asking the respondent to show cause as to why this amount should not be recovered from them under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 29-10-1998. The respondent filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order dated 1-2-2005 set aside the Assistant Commissioner s Order on the grounds that : (a) The Order-in-Original dated 24-1-1997 was an ex parte order. (b) The duty dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.) is applicable or that the order dated 24-1-1997 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is an ex parte Order, that the Commissioner (Appeals) s observation that extended period is not invokable, is incorrect as this is a case of finalization of the provisional assessment and the notice dated 12-12-1997 had been issued only for the purpose of quantification of the duty demand, subsequent to finalization of the provisional assessment and limitation period prescribed under Section 11A is not applicable where the assessments are provisional. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 4. We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and have gone through the records of this case. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
