https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95573 Where a remission request concerning the same excisable goods and duty demand remained pending before the competent authority, adjudication on the identical demand was premature and not maintainable; the demand and penalty proceedings were therefore quashed. On jurisdiction, goods stored in kutchha pits approved by the jurisdictional Superintendent could not be treated as lying outside the factory so as to trigger the exclusion in the first proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the objection to Tribunal jurisdiction was rejected. The appeal succeeded and the proceedings were set aside as not maintainable. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:04:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95573 Where a remission request concerning the same excisable goods and duty demand remained pending before the competent authority, adjudication on the identical demand was premature and not maintainable; the demand and penalty proceedings were therefore quashed. On jurisdiction, goods stored in kutchha pits approved by the jurisdictional Superintendent could not be treated as lying outside the factory so as to trigger the exclusion in the first proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the objection to Tribunal jurisdiction was rejected. The appeal succeeded and the proceedings were set aside as not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95573