9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself within the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal. A legacy of times past when the recovery provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 were an extension of the assessment provisions under which duty was payable only to the extent assessed by the ‘proper officer’ - which, in our opinion, should not be resorted to. And, therefore, we did not do so. Application dismissed. - ST/ROM-93372/2016 And ST/605/2011 - M/85697/17/STB - Dated:- 2-2-2017 - M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Mr. B. Kumar Iyer, Superintendent (AR) Mr. Mayur Shroff, Advocate Per: C J Mathew: This application under section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 has been preferred by Commissioner of Service T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction activities for export oriented units (EOU) and for others during the period from October 2004 to June 2006 were not disputed and it would appear that this was, therefore, erroneously not excluded in the omnibus operative portion. It was further contended that, even if it was intention of the Tribunal to set aside this portion too, an appropriate finding was essential. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for assessee. 4. It would appear that applicant-Commissioner is apprehensive that the amount that had been paid voluntarily by assessee is also lost to Revenue by this omnibus order. That this fear is needless is apparent on various counts. 5. We have not accorded any consequential relief in our order. Had it been our intention t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be construed as having any aspect beyond the matter stated for determination, viz., alleged short-payment for the period from July to September 2006 and disallowance of abatement under notification no. 1/2006-ST dated 1 st March 2006. 7. The apprehension, needless though it be, is understandable considering the curious logic for inclusion of ₹ 5,77,095/- in the notice as well as in the order impugned before us. That this amount has been admitted as due and discharged, along with appropriate interest, is acknowledged by the adjudicating Commissioner. It is also apparent that the adjudicating Commissioner was hard put to find any evidence for invoking the proviso to section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 and section 78 of Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
