2015 (4) TMI 388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Malini Sud,Adv. Ms. Vidhi Goel,Adv. Ms. Humika Menon Kaliya,Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan,Adv.   For the Respondent : Mr. Yashank Adhyaru,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma,Adv. Ms. B.Sunita Rao,Adv. Mr. Anurag,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. ORDER The appellant herein is the manufacturer of Foundrinier Synthetic Wire Cloth and the said cloth is of a kind suitable of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to January 1996 and January 2000 to March 2003. Thus the total period covered is September 1987 to March 2003 except February 1996 to December 1999.  The first show cause notice dated 25.9.1992 led to the passing of an Order-in-Original dated 10.2.2001 confirming the demand of additional duty proposed in the show cause notice and also a penalty of Rs. 72.73 lakhs. Similar order was passed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....larly on the question as to whether the intermediary product was marketable or not, we are of the opinion that other issues raised by the respondent also need to be adjudicated afresh by the Commissioner while deciding the said aspect. For the sake of clarity we may point out that following issues are raised by the appellant in these appeals:  (1) Jurisdictional issue, namely, whether in i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Notifications relied upon by the appellant; (6) Whether the Revenue can invoke the provisions of proviso to Section 11-A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and claim longer period of limitation of five years in issuing the show cause notices; (7) In case it ultimately held that additional duty is payable, then the question of quantification of the disputed demand including the question as ....