2013 (6) TMI 583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent : V.R.Kulkarni, Dy. Commissioner (AR) Per: Mr. Justice G.Raghuram, President After hearing the learned Representative for the appellant/assessee and the learned Departmental Representative for the respondent/Revenue, we find that no substantive interference is called for in this appeal by the assessee in the light of following chronology of events:-    (i) The asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tubes, treated them as waste and scrap. Alleging contravention of the provisions of Rules 8, Rule 11, Rule 6 and rule 10 of the CER, 2002, Revenue issued show-cause notices and eventually after a due process of law, by the adjudication order dated 19.01.2009 dropped the proceedings initiated. The adjudicating authority to support his order for aborted the proceedings, relied upon the circumstance ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of litigative events in respect of the earlier period did not come in the way of adjudication for the current period; that the 11 show-cause notices involved for the current period and decided by the adjudication order (dated 19.01.2009), were issued on the ground that the respondent assessee was required to pay duty on the value of aluminium scrap which were cleared without accounting and payme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder. 5. There is however no assessment of the liability of the assessee; no determination whether the unusable aluminium tubes were manufactured or marketed, nor a determination of the assessee's liability to duty nor the quantification of excise duty is assessed, under any head, either by the primary authority or by the appellate authority. 6. As is apparent from the appellate order, the p....