9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patil i/b. Ms. Mansi Patil for the respondent. P.C. :- 1. We have heard both sides. 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1st April, 2014. 3. Mr. Dwivedi learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal would not dispute that the eventual direction in this order is a remand to the adjudicating authority. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was sought, are dated 31st March, 2003 and 13th August, 1993. 6. Needless to clarify that the factual position, as narrated, is that the assessee is a registered 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) under the Software Technology Park (STP) Scheme. They set up infrastructural facility for software technology park. They were also granted licence for bonded warehouse under section 58 of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice was issued proposing to recover the entire excise duty forgone and in the above sum. That was adjudicated and the order under challenge before the tribunal was passed. The argument was that there are no notifications or scheme allowing payment of duty at the stage of de-bonding at the depreciated value. The Revenue argued that the notifications in question did not provide for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;s opinion and prima facie contrary to its own circulars and notifications issued from time to time. 8. That is why the assessee was also mandated to follow the prescribed procedure. If that has been fulfilled, then, the duty liability in terms of the Revenue scheme had to be worked out. We do not see how such an order, by which the tribunal did not allow the appeal of the assessee but remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
