9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into effect from 11-4-1994, the benefit of the notification cannot be extended to the appellants retrospectively w.e.f. 1-3-1994.' The demand for central excise duty ss affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and subsequently upheld by the Tribunal, with a reduction in the penalties imposed upon the assessee - The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the revenue. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT : For the petitioner(s): Mr. Rahul, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Sr. Standing Counsel. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , J. (ORAL) 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instructions. No one else has appeared before us. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich shall be done as expeditiously as possible. The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. The Appellant shall now appear before the High Court on August 8, 2011. The respondent has not entered appearance despite service. Therefore, the High Court may issue fresh notice to the said respondent. 4. We find that although the order was passed by the Supreme Court on 11.07.2011, the registry did not list this case after 09.08.2011 till 2016. We also find that on account of the laxity of the registry, cases wherein, the Supreme Court while remanding back to this Court makes observation to decide the particular case within a time period, remain undecided. 5. The registry is directed to place our order before Hon ble the Chief Just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly refer to the movement of excisable goods under Rule 57-F(2). In view of this, the reliance placed by the appellant on the observation of the Tribunal in respect of Notification No. 214/86 in the remand order is not tenable. 10. Before us, in addition to the two points which were urged before the Tribunal, counsel for the appellants for the first time urged that the benefit of Notification No. 83/94-CE dated 11-4-1994 be extended to the appellants with effect from 1-3-1994, in other words to give effect to the said notification with retrospective effect. 11. In the order of remand, the Tribunal had specifically held that the products manufactured by the appellants were marketable and therefore exigible to the levy of excise duty. The find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
