Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. dated 20.05.1988; (ii) whether the duty liability had to be quantified taking into account the Deemed Credit Order dated 01.06.1989.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. dated 20.05.1988.
Analysis: The appellant conceded that the exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was not available. The demand sustained by the adjudicating authority on that score was therefore not open to challenge.
Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. dated 20.05.1988 was not admissible to the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the duty liability had to be quantified taking into account the Deemed Credit Order dated 01.06.1989.
Analysis: The duty amount had not yet been finally quantified. In the interests of justice, the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority with the Deemed Credit Order dated 01.06.1989 also taken into account, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to place its defence.
Conclusion: The adjudicating authority was directed to quantify the duty liability afresh after considering the Deemed Credit Order dated 01.06.1989.
Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed, but the matter was sent back for fresh quantification of duty with consideration of the deemed credit claim.