2006 (7) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, II Division. In the said Order the Asst. Commissioner dropped the following demands on the ground that the assessments were never provisional. (a) Rs. 15,46,773/- for the period 1-4-1989 to 12-9-1990 (b) Rs. 48,46,178/- for the period 1-11-1993 to 31-3-1996 The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order gave a finding that the Asst. Commissioner erred in dropping the above demands and held that the appellants are liable to pay the above amounts. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (A), hence they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. S/Shri L. Goyal and T. Ramesh, learned advocates appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Reddy, learned JDR ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order from the Asst. Commissioner stating the reasons for the assessment to be provisional. There should be a bond and bank guarantee. The Commissioner (A) failed to see this point. (iv) The appellant has rightly pointed out that the Executive Commissioner has not set out the grounds of appeal to be referred to Commissioner (A) as contemplated under Section 35E(2). Failure to do so is fatal to the whole proceedings. 5. The learned JDR reiterated the findings of Commissioner (A). 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. No doubt Revenue was aggrieved over the Order-in-Original dated 11-8-1997 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise. Hence, the Commissioner issued an Authorization Order No. 7/98,....