2008 (7) TMI 680

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  This case is arising in a second round of litigation. In the first round, this Bench had remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for requantification of duty after considering the assessee's plea for grant of SSI benefit under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and after giving them a reasonable opportun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....antifying the demand of duty (b) the plea for vacating the penalty on the ground that, during the material period, they were under a bona fide belief that they could clear waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) without payment of duty for regranulation and return of the granules for further use in the manufacture of PVC pipes and (c) the bank guarantee was enforced beyond the scope of the show-cause no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he original authority. The remand ordered by this Bench earlier was for requantification of duty. Such an exercise necessarily involves the question whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act. Though this benefit was specifically prayed for, it was not granted. It is claimed that the show-cause notice did not propose confiscation of the seized goods. The adju....