9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocates, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : K.L. Manjunath, J.]. - The Revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the order of the CESTAT dated 3-1-2006 passed in Appeal No. C/38/2003 [2006 (196) E.L.T. 431 (Tri. - Bang.)] raising the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal, in spite of coming to the conclusion that duty could b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estic tariff area. The cut flowers were sold for a value of Rs. 9,67,979/- between the period from 26-12-1995 to 28-2-1997. A show cause notice was issued on 3-7-1997 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the value of the cut flowers sold in domestic tariff area should not be confiscated and why duty and penalty shall not be levied for violating the customs law. 3. The assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-1-2006. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has come up in this appeal. 4. The main contention of the Revenue is, even if the Tribunal was of the opinion that the authority did not consider the input used by the assessee in respect of the roses sold in domestic tariff area, it should have remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Revenue requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. In regard to the limitation is concerned, there is no finding either by the Assessing Officer or by the Tribunal. Even if we consider the said question, the said question has to be considered by the Assessing Officer since the Assessing Officer did not focus his attention on the question of limitation. Whether the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
