2014 (8) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pugned order. 2. This is a 2 nd round of litigation. In the earlier round this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to re-quantify the duty for a period of six months after allowing the benefit of modvat credit, for which purpose the appellants would produce the relevant documentary evidence. It was also held by this Tribunal that there is no justif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and should be from 19.12.1997. If that is to be taken as the date for considering the limitation, then there will be a difference in the duty demand. He further submits that the learned Commissioner, in the remand proceedings has not considered the issue as per the Annexure B to the show-cause notice. The respondent has not produced the proof of export and for non-production of evidence of export, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter allowing the benefit of modvat credit. The Tribunal's order has been accepted by the Revenue as no appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the said order. Therefore, the question of demanding differential duty for which the respondent has not shown any proof, is not sustainable because the issue has become final in the earlier round of litigation, hence the appeal filed by the Revenue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X