9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit - demand set aside. Demand of duty on raw materials - Held that: - the issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Aisa Metals vs CCE & ST Ahmedabad [2015 (4) TMI 69 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where the demand has been set aside - demand set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.E/255,276/2009-DB - Final Order No. A / 10647-10648 /2018 - Dated:- 4-4-2018 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) For Appellant: None For Respondent: Mr. L. Patra (A.R.) ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These two appeals are filed one by the Revenue and another by the assesee challenging the same order in appeal No. RKA/782/SRT-I/2008 passed by Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has stated in their grounds of appeal that demand can be sustained simultaneously both on the raw materials as well as on the finished goods against the assesse, an 100% EOU, on the quantity of goods that has been cleared from the factory without payment of duty. Ld. AR for the Revenue fairly submits that as far as the demand on the raw material is concerned, the issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Aisa Metals vs CCE ST Ahmedabad 2015 (328) ELT 152 (Tri. Amd). On the issue of computation of demand under Proviso to Section 3(1) of CEA, 1944, the Ld. AR submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd. vs CCE SUrat-II 2016 (336) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinguished the judgment in SIV Industries Ltd. (supra). The later circular issued on 5-1-2004 on which reliance was placed by the revenue before the Tribunal which has been taken note of in the impugned judgment is clearly indicative of an erroneous approach. The decision in NCC Blue Water Products Ltd. (supra) was bound to be followed and the Tribunal could not have stated that 2004 circular was not taken note of. The Tribunal should have appropriately appreciated that this Court was interpreting the statutory provision and it is also worthy to note that after the judgment delivered in SIV Industries Ltd. (supra) an amendment was brought into the provision. Therefore, the transaction prior to the date of amendment would be governed by SIV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
