9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinting Works against order-in-appeal no: SB(44)44/M-V/2010 dated 13th May 2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I pertains to demand of duty Rs. 3,98,830.61 for the period from 1st August 1976 to 3rd November 1976 for illicit removal of 1611680 mts of art silk fabric. The demand was confirmed by the then Collector of Central Excise, Bombay who also imposed a penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division, Mumbai - V, the adjudicating authority, confirmed the demand on the basis of available facts thus 'I find that as per Order No. 62/82 dtd 12.03.1982 passed by the Board of Central Excise and Customs, as far as the duty demand is concerned the Board directed that the basis for calculation of duty be re-examined after explaining the basis of the valuation to the appellants and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upholding the duty liability, intended that further opportunity be afforded to the appellant to furnish particulars for re-determination of the duty liability. 4. Heard Shri Raman Khanna, partner, M/s Prabhat Dyeing & Printing Works and Learned Authorised Representative. 5. According to appellant, the only active partner during the relevant time, Shri Vijay Khanna, expired in 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the duty liability. 8. The impugned order has merely affirmed the order of the lower authority on the ground of failure of appellant to participate in the proceedings. Consequently, the order merely reiterates that was set aside by the erstwhile appellate authority without reconsidering the aspects directed by that authority. Moreover, the remand direction of the Tribunal has also bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
