9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classified the products manufactured by them as un-manufactured "Branded Chewing Tobacco" under a specific heading while the show cause notice alleged that it would get classified as manufactured branded "Branded Chewing Tobacco": Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands raised along with interest and penalties. In order to avail the course of appellate remedy appellant deposited the amounts confirmed and preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority : the First Appellate Authority upheld the classification as decided by the Adjudicating Authority but set aside the demands raised on the ground of limitation. This order of the First Appellate Authority was challenged before the Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld by dismissing the Civil Appeal on 06/04/1995. 5. I find that the appeal of the revenue is devoid of merits. It is undisputed fact that the demands which were raised on the assessee M/s Praveen Tobacco Company Ltd. were contested by them on limitation as well as on merits. During the pendency of the proceedings, they had deposited the duty liability interest and part of the amount as penalty. On successful litigation on before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, they rightfully claimed the amount paid/deposited by them with the authorities. In my view, the First Appellate Authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the amounts which were deposited by the appellant are refundable. The relevant findings from the order impugned are r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time barred. A personal hearing was also held on 28.07.2016. The appellants have submitted that this ground not being there in the impugned order or in the show cause notice leading to impugned order, the ground can't be brought in at the stage of appeal & Section 35A merely allows show cause notice to be issued for recovery of any erroneous refund at the Commissioner (Appeals) level. The appellants have cited this case of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. CCE Bangalore [1999 (106) ELT 422 (T)] to submit that it is "not open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to raise a new ground which was not there in the show cause notice or the ground taken by the adjudicating authority". The cases of Precision Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai [2016 (334) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
