1999 (11) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondent No. 1 to redetermine the actual production of excisable goods in petitioner's factory in terms of Section 3A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the insistence of the respondents for payment of duty in terms of earlier determination, which does not legally survive. 2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.R. Gupta, learned Counsel for the resp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w Delhi and the said appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 26-5-1998, whereby the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter back to him for a fresh determination, after providing the tax payer an opportunity to be heard in person. The Commissioner then passed a fresh order dated 11-1-1999 taking the view that the petitioner had opted for the payment of duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mination communicated to the petitioner vide a letter dated 30-9-1999; although the said determination has been set aside by the Tribunal and no determination is in existence. It is claimed that the respondent No. 2 visited the petitioner's factory and threatened to take coercive steps for the realisation of the excess excise duty. No counter affidavit proposed to be filed and after hearing the le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X