9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal of the Revenue was admitted by this Court on 4th April, 2006. It was placed for directions today to find out as to whether the issue raised and the questions on which the appeal has been admitted by terming them as substantial questions of law survive for determination. 2. Since both sides state that the same survive, we take up, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 11AB proposed. Following our decision in appellants own case vide Order No. A/589/WZB/ 05/C-1, dated 12-5-2005 para 8 thereof, this recovery under provision of Section 11D cannot be upheld. In any case, resort to rule 9(2) read with Section 11A is bad in law since the recovery under Section 11D is not a levy of duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On same reasons pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28th September, 1996. They started paying the Central Excise duty on their depot price from 25th October, 1996. However, they did not pay the differential duty on their stock as on 24th October, 1996 on which they had already paid Central Excise duty on ex-factory price. The assessee was called upon to pay differential duty on the stock lying in their depot as on 24th October, 1996. That is how a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998. That was to the tune of Rs. 38,33,724/-. Thus, the detailed findings of the Commissioner and as appearing from Pages 46-47 of the paperbook had not been considered at all. Similarly, whether the fact situation in the present case is identical to the assessee's own case referred in the Tribunal's order has also not been considered in details. 6. As a result of the cryptic and virtually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
