9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT NEW DELHI). We set-aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/140/2006 - ORDER No. A/10782 / 2015 - Dated:- 9-6-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das and Mr. P.M. Saleem, JJ. For Appellant : Shri Devan Parikh, Senior Advocate and Shri Nirav Shah, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative Per : Mr. P.K. Das; The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Re-rolled products of non-alloy steels classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. From 01.09.1997, they were working under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and discharging duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the erstwhile Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty for the period 16.12.1998 to 27.02.1999 and for the period 28.02.1999 to 05.11.1999. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 28.03.2001, set-aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de-novo adjudication. In the said order, the duty demand for the period 16.12.1998 to 27.02.1999 was set-aside and the demand for the period from 28.02.1999 onwards, was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for de-novo adjudication. In de-novo adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 10.02.2004 confirmed the demand of duty for the period 28.02.1999 to 05.11.1999 under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the erstwhile Rules. By Order (Appeal) dated 16.05.2005, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96ZQ w.e.f. 1-3-2001 and omission of Section 3A of the Act without saving clause w.e.f. 11-5-2007, the proceedings initiated prior to omission which had not been concluded as on 11-5-2001 would lapse. In this case, though, initially the show cause notice issued prior to 1-3-2001 had been adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the orders and had remanded the matter for part of the period of dispute to the Asstt. Commissioner for de novo adjudication and de novo proceedings were concluded in 2004, long after omission of Rule 96ZQ with effect from 01-3-2001 and Section 3A with effect from 11-5-2001 without any serving clause and therefore the same would lapse. In view of this, we do not find any merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
