9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. Commr. (A)/731/VDR/98, dt. 27-8-98. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows : (a) The appellant, a 100% EOU, is a manufacturer of grinding machine and they were granted permission by the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an order dt. 17-6-97 demanded a duty of Rs. 97,689/- as proposed in the first show cause notice and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. The original authority vide order dt. 22-7-97 confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,39,331/- as proposed in the second show cause notice and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. (c) The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dt. 27-8-98 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said proposition, he relies on the decision of Delux Carpet Co. v. CC (Prev.), Mumbai as reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 80 (Tri-Mumbai). (iii) The clearances of the machines in DTA was in pursuance of permission granted to them by the Development Commissioner in 1992 which did not have any restriction about the time limit for effecting clearances. The restriction imposing the time li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo demands are not permissible. It is also noticed that the two demands have been issued after issue of second show cause notice. The second demand amounting to Rs. 2,39,951/- includes the amount already included in the order of the original authority arising out of the show cause notice dt. 19-1-96 which is not legal and proper. We have already noted that no appeal has been filed against the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
