9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is aggrieved with the OIA No. 108/2004-C.E., dated 27-5-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin. The Tribunal, vide their Final Order No. 110/96, dated 15-12-1996, remanded the matter to the original authority for re-computation of duty. The Tribunal clearly held that the merits of the case has not been contested and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants, at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, had not contested the merits and had only raised the point pertaining to calculation on the basis of the quantum of goods cleared by evading the duty during the period from September, 1988 to January, 1989. He submits that the appellants' plea for arguing the case on merits should have been considered by both the authorities. Non-considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Southern Bench, Chennai in earlier proceedings and the Tribunal had remanded the matter by Final order No. 110/1996, dated 15-12-1996 solely for computation of duty. The Advocate and the Party had not contested the merits of the case. He further submits that in this circumstance, the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority were bound by the remand directions and they have re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direction. They cannot enlarge the remand directions given in the Tribunal's order and re-consider the matter on merits. The appellants have foregone their case by not contesting the merits before the Tribunal. It is too late now to argue the case on merits. Taking into consideration, the overall facts of the case, the RF on the appellant of Rs. 75,000/- is reduced to Rs. 40,000/-. There is no jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
