TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and law as well as adduce evidence, if any. It is surprising to note that while issuing a notice on 29/07/1994, learned Authority had all facts and figures with him for the period beginning from 08/09/1989 till 31/03/1994. He again issued a notice on 27/09/1994 covering the same period from 28/09/1989 to 31/03/1993 although that may be for different goods and different periods are covered. Authority did not stop there. He issued further notice on 30/06/1995 covering the period from 01/08/1994 to 31/03/1995. This has resulted in multiplicity of litigation. He should state the reasons of issuance of such multiple notices specifically against each such notice and covering relevant period in his re-adjudication order. Limitation issue may be considered in the re-adjudication. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to both and pass an appropriate order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/795, 796 & 2780/2006 - A/88393-88395/17/EB - Dated:- 24-4-2017 - Shri D N Panda, Judicial Member And Shri C J Mathew, Technical Member Appellant - Represented by: Mr. Mayur Shroff, Advocate Respondent - Represented by: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - do - No No 501CPS/BP - do - Yes Yes - 2. Single Sockets on boards 105CSO 8536.90 Yes Yes - 1015CSO - do - Yes Yes - 2023CSSO - do - No No Non conformity with ISI specifications 3. Boards consisting of 2 or more of switches, sockets mentioned above at Sl. No. 1 2 503 CPS 8537.00 Yes No Classification 503CPS Yes 504CPS Yes 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-CBP 101-CBP 4. Telephone Cord outlet single and double 701CTO 8517 No No Classification 702CTO 2.2. Appellant further submits that in order to get the exemption benefit in terms of Notification No.144/89 dated 19.05.1989 as is extracted in para 25 of the order of the adjudicating authority, in the re-adjudication order, presently under appeal, the goods should be switches, plugs, sockets, fuses lam p holders and ceiling roses falling under heading 85.36 of CETA, 1985. Apart from that, there are further 3 conditions to be satisfied. Those are: (i) that the goods above should have been manufactured using hand operated presses for moulding operations; (ii) no power is used for any operation after moulding in relation to the said goods except for their buffing, i.e. polishing, or for testing; (iii) the said goods conform to Indian Standard and bear Standard Mark as defined under Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We are not provided with material to appreciate whether the appellant-assessee was the owner of the brand-name. The assignment deed may be of different formats. But its contents are relevant. Therefore, it is primary duty of the adjudicating authority to examine the contents of the assignment deed thoroughly and also enquire as to whether by virtue of the assignment deed, the brand name was owned by the assessee exclusively. On the basis of outcome of his examination and enquiry, he shall be in a position to reach to a proper conclusion and decide notification benefit, if any, admissible. While carrying out such exercise, learned Authority shall also examine minutely all the other conditions specified in the notifications. During the course of scrutiny, appellant is entitled to a fair opportunity of hearing to plead on facts and law as well as adduce evidence, if any. 5.1. Assessee s further grievance is that while show cause notice was confined to demand of duty ₹ 68,54,995/- that should not have been enlarged to a higher demand of duty of ₹ 73,92,272/- in adjudication. Such plea needs scrutiny to ascertain whether that was outcome of any mathematical error or on an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
