9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Dry cells under the brand name "Geep" from Mysore plant and also manufacturing Dry Cell batteries to principal manufacturers "Eveready Industries Limited" under their brand 'Eveready'. The Department has granted permission vide letter dated 15.09.1992 allowing them to follow the provisional assessment until the further orders in terms of erstwhile Rule 173C (6) read with Rule 9(B) under various price lists filed by the appellant. This order was withdrawn vide letter dated 25.02.1998 which was received by the appellant on 08.03.1998 whereby the appellants were directed to follow "self assessment procedure" by claiming all the deductions in terms of the Order-in-Original No. 179/97 dated 31.10.1997 w.e.f. 01.03.1998. In between vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one represented the appeal before him. Thereafter the appellant filed appeal against the order dated 22.10.2002 before the Hon'ble CESTAT and the CESTAT allowed the appeal and sent for De novo consideration to Commissioner (Appeals) vide CESTAT order dated 957/2004 dated 20.05.2004. Thereafter Commissioner (Appeals) after consideration of all the facts and the documents vide Order-in-Appeal No. 342/2004 dated 23.08.2004 made it clear that the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore should finalize the provisional assessment in terms of his direction as per the CESTAT order. But in respect of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the Assistant Commissioner once again upheld the Order-in-Original No. 179/1998 dated 04.09.1998 and appropriated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited supra. He also submitted that in De novo proceedings, the lower authorities cannot get into the issues which stands decided against the Revenue by the higher authorities as it amounts to direct contempt of Court. He also submitted that if the Revenue is not satisfied with the order of De novo then they should have preferred an appeal before the High Court or Supreme Court but they cannot refuse to follow the orders of the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that in a De novo proceedings both the authorities have carved out a case which was not before the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
