9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the order of demand of adjudicating authority was set aside by the lower appellate authority. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent filed a classification list to classify their product in the year 1986 to classify their product. Therefore, thereafter a show-cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) held that as the classification for the period from February 1986 to August 1986 has already been decided by the AC vide order dated 21.1.1987 by allowing the exemption under 52/86 to some of product to be cleared at concessional rate of duty and the same was not challenged by the department. Hence, the demand for the impugned period is not sustainable. Against that order, revenue is in appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty. The said order was not challenged by the department and same has attained finality during impugned period. Later on, the show-cause notice issued for the same period, by the Asst. Commissioner, demanding differential duty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Same view has been taken by the lower appellate authority. If at all the revenue is of the opinion that the respondent is not enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
