9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2001. 2. This is a Statutory Appeal filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in Final Order No. 1055/2000-B (composite Final Order Mos. 1052-1055/2000-B) dated 3-7-2000 passed in Appeal No. E/2635/99-B. Brief Facts: 3. The appellants were manufacturing hot rolled untrimmed sheets/circles of copper copper alloys falling under chapter Heading No. 7409 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were holding a Central Excise registration certificate and were clearing the goods on payment of Central Excise duty till 28-2-1994. They surrendered their Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants under prescribed challans, the benefit under the said rule was not available for the following reasons : (a) Declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules was not filed. (b) Credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules was not availed. (c) Duty liability in terms of Notification No. 1/93 was not discharged by the suppliers of the semi-finished goods/raw material." 4. Appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal which remanded the case for fresh adjudication with the following observations : "(i) Notification No. 59/94 (which amends Notification No. 1/93 and grants SSI benefits to goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 to 31st March, 1994; the clearance of the appellants had crossed Rs. 200 lakhs in the financial year 1993-94 hence Notification No. 1/93 i.e. SSI benefit was not avail able during 1st April, 1994 to 10th April; 1994; that in terms of Tribunal's Judgment in the case of Jinabakul Forge Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 373 (T) as the conditions in the Notification No. 214/86 had not been observed, the goods manufactured by the appellants were liable to Central Excise duty and the duty liability was on the appellants. It was also held that in view of this Court's decision in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corpn. Ltd. reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this, the reliance placed by the appellant on the observation of the Tribunal in respect of Notification 214/86 in the remand order is not tenable." 10. Before us, in addition to the two points which were urged before the Tribunal, Counsel for the appellants for the first time urged that the benefit of the Notification No. 83/94-CE., dated 11-4-1994 be extended to the appellants with effect from 1-3-1994, in other words to give effect to the said notification with retrospective effect. 11. In the order of remand, the Tribunal had specifically held that the products manufactured by the appellants were marketable and therefore exigible to the levy of excise duty. The finding recorded in the order of remand regarding the marketabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
