9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e erstwhile Central Excise Rules - Held that:- Issue raised by the appellant was not raised before the lower authorities. Hence, it is appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the facts of law of the case in the interest of justice. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/1186-1189/2007, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in existence in the statute and the demand of Central Excise duty can not be confirmed under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. In support of his contention, he relied upon various decisions, as under:- (i) Sunrise Structurals Engg. Limited Ors. vs. CCE, Nagpur - Order NO. A/711 to 722/WZB/04.C.II dated 27.8.2004. (ii) Milton Polyplast - Order No. A/633-635/WZB/2005/GIII/81 dated 27.5.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals). He further submits that this issue was not raised before the lower authorities. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bee Am Chemicals Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad - 2014 (309) ELT 183 (Tri. Mum.). The learned Advocate for the appellants also contesting the demand on merits. 4. I find that the issue raised by the appellant was not rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
