TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not concluded - the proceedings under Section 11A(2) are to be treated as closed. Entitlement for Cum-duty benefit – Held that:- Following C.C.E., Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2002 (2) TMI 101 - Supreme Court] - Asssessee is entitled to cum-duty benefit – Decided against Revenue. - E/1750/2010 - Final Order No. 55664/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under show cause notice are not complete in view of the provisions of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Revenue is also challenging the impugned order on the ground that the goods were clandestinely cleared, cum-benefit of duty is not available to the respondents. 6. The respondents pointed out that the Revenue filed appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenge in the appeal. Therefore, I find no merits in the contention of the Revenue that proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not concluded. Further I find that the Tribunal in the case of Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Director of the respondent-company against whom the proceedings were initiated with the same show cause notice vide order dated 11-6-2012 in Appeal No. E/978/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
