TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 16.6.1997 and 04.3.1997. So, confirmation of demand of duty alongwith interest and penalties in respect of the said two show cause notices are not sustainable. - matter remanded back - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/537/2011 - ORDER No. A/10603/ 2015 - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Devan Parikh, Senior Advocate and Shri H. Shah, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative Per : Mr. P.K. Das; The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant were engaged in the manufacture of Calcium Carbonate Precipitated. According to the appellant, it is classifiable under Heading No. 25.05 of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of three show cause notices. He submits that the adjudicating authority decided two show cause notice in respect of the period July 1997 to February 1997 and no personal hearing was granted. The main contention of the learned Senior Advocate is that earlier the Commissioner (Appeals) decided this issue in favour of the appellant and upheld classification under Chapter 25 vide Order (Appeal) dated 28.11.1990. Thereafter, the Central Excise officers had undertaken search and seized the goods, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. By judgment dated 29.09.1994, in Special Civil Application No. 10534 of 1994 (Kotak Chemicals Limited vs. UOI), the Hon'ble High Court quashed the proceedings on seizure of the goods wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the three show cause notices for the period from February 2001 to November 2002 were decided by the Tribunal vide final order dated 23.4.2008 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2009 (243) ELT 321 (SC). It is submitted that the Tribunal order is merged with the Hon'ble Supreme Court order and therefore, adjudicating authority has rightly passed the de-novo adjudication order. In respect of the other two show cause notices, it is submitted that they are also on the identical issue, which are covered by the decision of the Tribunal 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the three show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
