9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd re-rolled and cleared by them at 'nil' rate of duty after wrongly availing the benefit of Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983 during the period 1-8-1983 to 31-3-1986, was raised. After getting their reply, the Collector confirmed the demand and held that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of the said notification, as their inputs were not duty paid, vide his Order, dated 31-1-1989 and imposed penalty on the partner and Manager of the respondents. That order of Collector was however, challenged by the respondents before the Tribunal and the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Collector with regard to the non-availability of benefit of Notification No. 208/83 to the respondents, as their inputs were not found to be duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rusal of the impugned order shows that the Collector has gone beyond the scope of the remand order as in Para 8 of the impugned order, he had recorded the findings that from the invoices from December, 1985 to 31-3-1986 it was clear that the ship breakers had paid the duty under protest. His findings in this regard are beyond the scope of the remand order as such have to be ignored altogether. The Tribunal while remanding the case, recorded specific findings against the respondents that they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/83, as the inputs used by them were not proved to be duty paid. Those findings were never challenged by the respondents and as such, the Collector on receipt of case by remand could not record con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. (P) Ltd., v. C.C.E. - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 214 (S.C) that the visit of the departmental officials to the factory of the assessee would not be enough to hold that the department was aware of the production of the goods in question. These observations have also not kept in mind by the Collector while passing the impugned order. Even the Tribunal in M/s. Nizam Sugar Factory v. C.C.E. Hyderabad - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 429 (T) has taken the view that specific knowledge on the part of the department has to be established by the assessee about the activities carried out by him, in respect of the production/removal of the goods. 7. In view of discussion made above, the impugned order of the Collector is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
