9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is that in the first round of litigation against order-in-original dated 28-12-99, Tribunal has passed a very specific direction vide Order No. A-2019/CAL/2000, dated 8-12-2000 reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 717 directing to quantify duty holding that liability shall not be fastened in respect of Furnace No. 2 in which non-notified goods were manufactured. The ld. Adjudicating Commissioner without following direction of the Hon'ble Tribunal travelled beyond that. Hence this appeal is again before this forum to redress the wrong done to the Appellant by de novo order of adjudication. The period of dispute is August, 1997 to December, 1998. The ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. S.K. Bagaria appearing for the appellant submitted that Furnace No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was to reassess and the authority has rightly acted to raise the demand legitimately. Therefore, the Hon'ble Tribunal may reconsider the issue in view of contradicting evidence available on record against the appellants for which the ld. Counsel has fairly stated that the demand of Rs. 3,14,000/- arose for the month of August, 1997 shall be paid by the appellant. 4.1 Heard both sides and perused the record. Record reveals that the premises on which original order of adjudication was passed on 28-12-99 has remained unchanged and in view of the specific finding made in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid reported judgment in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 717, not at all requires to hold otherwise. For convenience of reading para 8 of the order dated 8-12-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DM-73/05 arose out of order-in-original Nos. 78-82/De novo/MP/Commr/2003-04 dated 15-10-2004. Consequent upon remand of earlier order of adjudication dated 10-2-2001 by Tribunal in terms of Order Nos. S-614-615/A and A-714-715-KOL/2002 dated 25-6-2006. Appeal No. 510/05 arose against Order-in-Original No. 93/MP/Commr./2005 dated 8-8-2005 relating to the period Sept. 97 to January, 1998. The appellant's grievance in both the Appeals is that its rolling mill manufacturing only bars and rods of alloy steel and not manufacturing any other goods, cannot be held otherwise when the Hon'ble Tribunal in its decision of the same assessee by order dated 8-12-2000 as reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 717 (Tri-Kolkata) has already held that if in any partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . According to him, it was made clear by Board that the units producing alloy and non-alloy steels should be considered as two separate units. The appellant also found support from the Tribunal's decision in their own case reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 717. Relying on the said decision, the appellant submitted that once the record proved that the appellant had manufactured only bars and rods of alloy steel, it shall not be held otherwise without any material bringing to record. The present appeal is in consequence of de novo adjudication made consequent upon direction of the Tribunal passed on 25-6-02 in appeal case Nos. A/714-715 and merited consideration for setting aside of the impugned order. 6. Therefore, the ld. Sr. Counsel, Shri S.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
