TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d i.e. ‘Bearing Housing Assembly, were found not similar to the goods cleared in the DTA. This being a prima facie finding of the Tribunal for the purpose of passing an interim order, such a finding cannot be considered to be a ground for raising a substantial question of law. Similarly, as far as the invocation of the extended period and consequently, the finding that the Department had been kept in dark regarding the use of both indigenous and imported raw materials as well, the finding is sought to be challenged on the ground that it is factually incorrect. The substantial questions of law are raised with reference to appreciation of factual aspect and therefore, when the Tribunal, on factual consideration, had come to a conclusion th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confirmed by the original authority, directing the assessee to pay a duty of ₹ 1,98,16,067/-, and interest at the appropriate rates on the amount demanded and also a penalty of ₹ 1,98,16,067/-. 3. This order, which was passed by the original authority, viz., the Commissioner of Central Excise, was challenged by the assessee/appellant before the first respondent CESTAT (Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal), and the CESTAT, passed the impugned order directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount as ordered by the Commissioner. Aggrieved, the appeal has been referred on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the first respondent erred in law while giving prima facie finding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the extended period, is also factually erroneous. With these submissions, the above questions of law are raised. 6. In our opinion, none of the questions of law raised can be considered by this Court in this appeal, at this stage, as admittedly, the impugned order is only an interim order passed by the Tribunal considering the prima facie case. 7. The concession availed by the appellant is only for clearance of Turbine Wheel in the DTA, whereas the goods exported i.e. Bearing Housing Assembly, were found not similar to the goods cleared in the DTA. This being a prima facie finding of the Tribunal for the purpose of passing an interim order, such a finding cannot be considered to be a ground for raising a substantial question of law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
