9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 11 AC cannot be levied prior to 28.09.1996 as well as rejecting the contention of the claim of the Revenue demanding duty from M/s.Vasu Chemicals, Madurai for the year 1992 is no longer valid, came forward to file this appeal and in the grounds of appeal, the following substantial question of law are raised: "1.Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the manufacture of green polishing bars from Aluminium Hydrate could be done only by the use of electricity from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board during the year 1992-1993, when other source for generating electricity are also available to the respondent. 2. When voluntary statements are given by the proprietor of M/s.Ashok Traders and Columbus Traders to the effect of purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act,1944 towards the duty liability on the polishing bars manufactured and cleared illicitly during 1993-1994 to 1996- 1997 (upto 11.10.1996) and imposed penalty of Rs. 9,20,000/- and as regards the levy of mandatory penalty/interest, the Original Authority finds that invoking Section 11AB and 11AC, cannot be ordered retrospectively as those provisions came into effect only on 28.09.1996. The Revenue aggrieved by the afore-stated portions of the order had filed the appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions on either side found that the appeal filed in CMA(MD).No.1220 of 2005 is pending without any interim orders and as such the claim made by the Revenue for the year 1992-1993 is no longer valid and further found tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed before it. 5. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, the substantial questions of law raised in the grounds of appeal are dealing with the question of fact only and it is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that the ratio laid down in the two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra is also not seriously disputed and canvassed before this Court. As already pointed out, this Court vide its order passed today in CMA(MD).No.1220 of 2005 has dismissed the appeal and sustained the order of remand passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 6. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
