9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the order in Original passed before remand - Held that: - Only because in the order of remand, the Tribunal did not record the words “set aside the order of adjudicating authority”, that would not mean that while remitting the matter, the Original order was intact - the decision in the case of BLUE STAR LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA [2009 (10) TMI 257 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T was justified in distinguishing the ratio of judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Blue Star Ltd. - 2010 (250) ELT 179 (Bom) and holding that interest was payable from date of passing of first Order-in-Original dated 16.9.1998 when, in appeal, the matter was remanded by the CESTAT to Commissioner for re-quantification of demand, and thereafter certain demand was confirmed vide second Order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd held that the duty was payable from the date of first order in Original. The judgment relied by the appellant does not apply to the facts of the present case. 5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates for respective parties. 6. The order in Original was passed on 16.9.1998. The appellant challenged the said order before appellate authority. The appellate aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t paid the same along with penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on 31.5.2005 under Section 179Q of the Central Excise Act. 8. Before remand, the adjudicating authority had imposed liability upon the appellant to the tune of ₹ 53,15,684/-. After remand of the matter, the adjudicating authority re-determined and confirmed demand of ₹ 46,22,322/- and gave benefit of modvat credit of ₹ 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
