TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal arises from the OIA No. 19/2006 dated 23-1-2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore, confirming the OIO No. 34/2005 dated 25-10-2005 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore. The matter has seen one round and the Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo by Final Order No. 1017/2005, dated 28-6-2005. The de novo order meant that all the issues are kept open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is the contention of the learned Counsel that the issue of Show Cause Notice, after a lapse of several years on 26-6-2000 would be clearly barred by time in the light of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Nizam Sugars - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.). He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the demands solely on the basis that the remand direction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of the matter. Admittedly, even in terms of the impugned order, the Show Cause Notice is without jurisdiction, as the Joint Commissioner has not taken permission from the Commissioner to invoke the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have set aside the demands on this ground alone after having agreed with this contention. The proceedings had been initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
