2002 (10) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ove statement of the appellants is correct, there is a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal. In any case, the delay is as short as below 5 days. After considering the explanation offered by the appellants in the COD application and after hearing both the sides, I condone the delay. 2. The stay application filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act seeks stay of recovery in respect of an amount of duty of Rs. 52,394/- and penalty amounts of Rs. 25,000/- [under Rule 9(2)] and Rs. 10,000/- (under Rule 173Q). The applicants, manufacturers of cold-rolled strips, had cleared certain quantities of goods on payment of duty to their customers but the customers found the goods to be defective and returned the same to the former under R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....round that the assessee had not taken the permission of the Chief Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 173H and that the goods did not belong to a category of goods specified under the said Rule. On the other hand, the learned Counsel submits that the lower authorities confirmed the demand of duty on a different ground. The Counsel states that they have a strong prima facie case. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, submits that it is not correct to say that the Adjudicating Authority and the first Appellate Authority decided the matter on a ground different from the one raised in the show cause notice inasmuch as, the show cause notice clearly refers to the invoices whereunder the goods in question were cleared w....