2008 (6) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Ramachandran Nair, J.]. - This appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act is against the order of the CESTAT allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, by which demand raised on them and confirmed in first appeal was cancelled by the Tribunal. 2. In spite of service of notice, respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... k and cleared by the respondent, they claimed the benefit of notification No. 16/97, which provides for exemption to SSI units. Since respondent was not engaged in the manufacture of the items cleared, duty was demanded on the final product by disallowing exemption under Notification No. 16/97. Even though demand was confirmed in first appeal. Tribunal reversed the same and cancelled the demand, a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t's case is under Notification No. 16/97. Since Tribunal has not considered respondent's liability in payment of duty on the re-rolled products, but has decided the appeal by treating the demand as one pertaining to clearances of ingots, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the appeal back to the Tribunal for fresh decision after hearing the parties.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgeme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X