Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (9) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e amounts demanded vide Debit Entries No. 1172/10080, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 all dated 19-3-2008 in RG 23A Part-II.- held that – since duty has been paid and accepted the remand of matter is not warranted - E/903-904/2006 - 1059/2008 - Dated:- 11-9-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) S/Shri Arshad Hidayathulla, Sr. Advocate and Joseph Kodianthara, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Spl. Counsel and K. Sambi Reddi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- The misc. application has been filed by Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel for Revenue. In the said application, there is a prayer for expunction of the following remarks made by this Bench in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d were made out of anguish in the context of repeated adjournments of hearings in important matters involving high revenue. They were not directed against the Special Counsels appearing before us. We clarify that we do not question the professional commitment and conduct of the applicants as Special Counsels. We reiterate that the said re are not directed against the applicant of this miscellaneous petition. Consequently, we reject the said Miscellaneous Application. E/903/2006: 4. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 309 to 313 of 2006 dated 15-5-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Cochin. 5. S/Shri Arshad Hitayatulla, the learned Senior Advocate and Joseph Kodianthara .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to our notice that similar issue was before the West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in the case of M/s. MRF Ltd. v. CCE, Goa. Our attention was drawn to para 6 of the Final order Nos. A/44 45/2007/C-II(EB) dated 17-1-2007 [2007 (210) E.L.T. 96 (Tribunal)], which is reproduced below:- "6. The learned advocate for the appellant at the outset submitted that though they have serious reservation regarding the marketability of the goods DTCWS having limited shelf life when preserved in a special packing, for the present they are not disputing the demand of the duty which has already paid by them and for which they shall not be claiming any refund thereof. They are only contesting the penalties imposed in respect of all the show cause notices adjudica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the duty liability, we remand the matter to the Original Authority. It is also further seen that in the party's own case, the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Vadodara-II had confirmed duty under similar circumstances on DNTCF manufactured and used for captive consumption. Thus, this appeal is remanded to the Original Authority for re-computation of the duty. 7.3 There was also a prayer from the learned Counsels of the appellant that for future cases, the question of marketability of the impugned product has to be kept open as the Mumbai Bench has not examined that issue at all. On a careful consideration of the issue, we are of the view that it would be beyond the scope of this Bench to pronounce anything on an issue which m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... regard to the classification, he has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh determination of the question of classification of DNTCF whether it would fall under 59.02 or 59.06 depending on the tenacity of the yarn contained in the DNTFC for levying AED. 10. In the light of the stand taken by M/s. MRF for the sake of uniformity, the appellant stated that they had paid the demand under the notices and for the present, they are not disputing the payment of duty without prejudice to their contentions regarding the non-manufacture and non-marketability of the subject goods. It was also informed that the appellants had paid the amounts demanded vide Debit Entries No. 1172/10080, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 all dated 19-3-2008 i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates