1989 (9) TMI 271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid by them. The Revenue authorities started raising demand for differential duty on RT 12 returns filed by respondents. Since on the RT-12 for the month of February 86 the Supdt. C. Excise did not raise the demand, the Collector in terms of Section 35E(2) took the matter in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who in this regard has held as under : "I have carefully considered the submissions of the respondents and the facts as stated in the application. I find that when on the specific issue, there is an order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras as stated in the statement of facts of the application, merely because the Department has filed an appeal to the CEGAT which is to be decided, does not authorise the demanding of du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... RT 12 returns were raised except in the case of one month. He pointed out that the Tribunal has already decided the matter in appeal No. E/103/84-B1, Order No. 653/87-B1, dated 14-10-87 in the case of the respondents (Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. M/s. Doorvani Cables Pvt. Ltd.). He pleaded that pending decision by the Tribunal there was no bar to raising the demand on the RT 12 and the Collector (Appeals) should have allowed the Department's appeal. 4. Shri Nityanand, Financial Officer appeared on behalf of the Respondent. In the written submission made by the respondents they have pointed out that the issue stands concluded with the decision of the Tribunal referred to by the learned S.D.R. Therefore, the Department's appeal....