TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. The stay application was heard on 8th April, 2004. It was the submission of the learned Counsel that the Commissioner had heard the appellants only on one Show Cause Notice in terms of order passed by the Tribunal in Final Order No. 1541/2002, dated 28-11-2002. However, in the impugned order, she has also taken up two other Show Cause Notices which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t put to notice with regard to the other two pending Show Cause Notices. In view of this situation, the Bench is of the considered opinion that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. The prayer for allowing the stay application was considered along with the prayer that the appeal to be taken up for consideration and for remand for de novo proceedings. We have heard both sides in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture, they have complied with the terms of the chapter note in discharging the duty. It is his submission that no such chapter note exists in respect of Headings 32 (except 3204), 39 and 40. It is his submission that the Revenue has not produced evidence with regard to their contention that all the items are construction chemicals falling under Chapter Heading 3824.90 while the appellants had prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be classified under Chapter Heading 3824.90 as the chapter heading had a note stating that re packing and re-labelling amounts to a process of manufacture, therefore, the finding recorded that the items are nothing but construction chemicals is a correct finding and it is not required for remand in the matter. 5. On a careful consideration, we notice from the remand order of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustainable. In view of these defects in the impugned order, we are constrained to set aside the same and remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo consideration. At this stage, the learned Counsel also submits that in terms of Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Elgi Equipments [2001 (128) E.L.T. 52 (S.C.)], mandatory penalty equivalent to the duty cannot be imposed. The Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
