9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanded back to the original authority for considering this claim of the assessee. At the same time, the original authority is directed to re-compute the duty liability on ‘shalikote.’ - matter on remand for computing the exact duty liability on all the products - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1266 & 3121/2006 - A/94392-94393/16/EB - Dated:- 9-12-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri C.M. Sharma, Consultant for the assessee Shri S.V. Nair, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for Revenue Per: C J Mathew: Appeal no. E/3121/2006 challenging order-in-appeal no. AT/M-III/88/2005 dated 25 th February 2005 and appeal no. E/1266/2006 challenging order-in-appeal no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notices had aggregated the duty computation of all grades of shalikote even though some were eligible for the exemption. 3. An aggrieved Revenue challenged this order of dropping the demands on tar felt and tar roof for the period between 1 st March 1994 and 24 th April 1994 before first appellate authority on the ground that exemption under notification no. 53/65 was not available for that period and that the classification stood altered from heading 5906.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to heading 5909.70 after 1 st March 1995. In the impugned order, it was held that these grounds of appeal were not sustainable as the show cause notice had not invoked the non-existence of exemption for denial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. Assessee is entitled to benefit of re-computation of tax liability on shalikote as some of the varieties are exempt. Whether this will yield a refund or not is contingent on whether the tax as originally demanded had been discharged or not. In the absence of a computation as ordered by original authority, there is, as yet, no cause of action before us or before the first appellate authority. Assessee also contends that the duty for October-December 1994 has not been short-paid and hence that amount was not includible in the total differential duty conformed by original authority. That, if true, certainly needs to be subject to re-computation. Further, it is claimed that refund of duty paid on exempt goods has not been granted. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
