9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice, the demand cannot be confirmed. Further, it is found that the impugned order has been passed confirming the demand on the ground not alleged in the show cause notice. Further, it is also found that it is a settled law that the demand cannot be confirmed on the ground which is not set up in the show cause notice. In view of the fact that impugned order has travelled beyond the allegation the show cause notice. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. S. S. GARG , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Pranav Aggarwal and Shri Ankit Bansal, CA s for the Appellant Shri Yashpal Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER S. S. GARG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and on misc. waste scrap non excisable respectively cleared during period from Oct. 2011 to July, 2012. Further, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued third periodical show cause notice dated 04.09.2013 proposing therein demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,38,455/- on mixed waste / scrap non excisable cleared during the period from Aug. 2012 to June, 2013. The appellant submitted reply to both the show cause notices and thereafter by following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original dated 29.10.2013 confirming the demand of the duty of Rs. 2,87,095/-, and also imposing penalty of equal amount of duty, besides levy of interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BANESWAR-I Versus CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD 2009 (241) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) 4.2 He further submits that the first show cause notice dated 06.01.2012 involving the demand of Rs. 9,38,922/- on the identical issue was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 28.01.2014 and the said order has attained finality because no appeal was filed against the said order and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is legally bound by the said decision. He further submits that invocation of extended period is also bad in law because earlier show cause notice was adjudicated in favour of the appellant. 5. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
