2005 (11) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esh Havanur, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 40/2005  (H-I)-C.E., dated 29-3-2005 confirming outstanding duty demands for the period 10th April '98, May '98, June '98, July '98 and August '98 respectively in terms of Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000/-. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... out of it for subsequent year. This Tribunal ruling is in terms of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of U.O.I. v. Supreme Steels and General Mills [2001 (133) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.)]. The learned Consultant submits that in the absence of any determination of ACP by the Commissioner in the year 1998-99, confirmation of demand is not proper in law. 2. The learned DR submits that the d....