9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. The appellant company has two manufacturing Units, Unit No.-I manufacturing engine-coupled pumps and Unit No.-II manufacturing castings. Unit II is the appellant herein. During the period April, 1997 to August, 1998, they had cleared castings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. These proposals were contested. In adjudication, the original authority confirmed demand of differential duty of Rs. 5,16,081/- against the appellant for the aforesaid period by invoking the larger period of limitation and imposed on them equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC besides a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q. In appeal, ld. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals) remanding a case to the original authority with directions beyond the scope of the proposal in the show-cause notice was set aside and the assessee's appeals were allowed. We have heard ld. SDR also. 4. We have perused the relevant show-cause notice issued to the appellant (copies supplied by Consultant). This show-cause notice had proposed to compare the price of the subject goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irecting the original authority to compare the value of the subject goods with the price structure of like product adopted by medium-scale Units, a course clearly beyond the scope of the proposal made in the relevant show-cause notice. A similar factual situation arose for the consideration of the Tribunal in the case of Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. (supra). The impugned order, in that case, had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
