9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok K. Arya Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 17-18/COMMR/2008 dated 30.1.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot whereunder the Central Excise duty of Rs. 44,83,752/- along with education cess of Rs. 89,675/- has been confirmed against the Respondent M/s Sanghi Industries Limited (SIL). 2. The brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 16.3.95, the Respondent is required to pay duty @ 16% which is on consumption of DM water for further manufacturing of mineral water which attracts nil rate of duty. (vi) The Department issued two show cause notices No.18 & 19/2007 both dated 6.3.2007 for recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 79,72,049/- and Rs. 1,00,42,459/- respectively. (vii) The adjudicating authority vide impugned order held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that demands for the period up to 28.2.2005 and for the period from March 2005 to February 2006 have wrongly been dropped. 3. With the above background of facts, We have heard Dr. J. Nagori, ld. A.R. for the Revenue and Shri Anand Nainawati, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent. 4. During the hearing, the ld. Advocate for the respondent informs that the Respondent also came in appeal against the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending with the adjudicating authority. 6. In the light of the above discussion and the plea of the Revenue that adjudicating authority did not properly examine the facts and the facts that the impugned order was set aside earlier by the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.6.2008 mentioned above, we find that the subject matter raised in the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be remanded for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
