9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/3010/2007 - A/61744/2016-EX[DB] - Dated:- 3-11-2016 - (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri G.M. Sharma, AR- for the appellant Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate- for the respondent Per Dr. Satish Chandra The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 28.03.2007 passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent did not suffer any duty. (iv) The Adjudicating Authority vide OiO dated 28.03.2007 confirmed the demand of duty on the seats by denying the benefit of the 1995 Notification. The Adjudicating Authority held that Respondent has not paid any excise duty as Notification No. 27/2002-NT dated 23.07.2002 had direct that any short payment made as a result of incorrect classification unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Appeal has observed as under: From the records I find that the issue of demand of duty on the seats manufactured and consumed captively and the proposal to deny exemption from payment of duty on such seats under the aforesaid notification has not come up for the first time. This issue has been agitated in the past also as is evident from the order in Appeal No. 357/CE/CHD-I/01 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ats would not arise. If the duty is held to be payable on the body built on the chasis, the proviso to notification no. 67/95-CE will not be attracted. In the denovo proceedings of the above CEGAT final order dated 14.11.2002, the proceedings were dropped by the adjudicating authority vide order in original no. 36-39/CE/ADC(P V)/CHD/2004 dated 25.06.2004. In view of the above, I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
