TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order No. 1055/2000-B (composite Final Order Mos. 1052-1055/2000-B) dated 3-7-2000 passed in Appeal No. E/2635/99-B. Brief Facts: 3. The appellants were manufacturing hot rolled untrimmed sheets/circles of copper & copper alloys falling under chapter Heading No. 7409 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were holding a Central Excise registration certificate and were clearing the goods on payment of Central Excise duty till 28-2-1994. They surrendered their Central Excise registration certificate with effect from 24th March, 1994. Show cause notice was issued under the Act on 12th of July, 1994 to show cause as to why the duty amounting to Rs. 2,14,780/- for the period from 1st March, 1994 to 31st Mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ules was not availed. (c) Duty liability in terms of Notification No. 1/93 was not discharged by the suppliers of the semi-finished goods/raw material." 4. Appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal which remanded the case for fresh adjudication with the following observations : "(i) Notification No. 59/94 (which amends Notification No. 1/93 and grants SSI benefits to goods under dispute) and this aspect should have been examined by the adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals). (ii) Notification No. 214/86 fixes responsibility for payment of Central Excise duty on suppliers of raw m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Tribunal's Judgment in the case of Jinabakul Forge Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 373 (T) as the conditions in the Notification No. 214/86 had not been observed, the goods manufactured by the appellants were liable to Central Excise duty and the duty liability was on the appellants. It was also held that in view of this Court's decision in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corpn. Ltd. reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Jinabakul Forge Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was of binding nature. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the adjudicating authority, the appellants filed appeals which were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Being further aggrieved, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the first time urged that the benefit of the Notification No. 83/94-CE., dated 11-4-1994 be extended to the appellants with effect from 1-3-1994, in other words to give effect to the said notification with retrospective effect. 11. In the order of remand, the Tribunal had specifically held that the products manufactured by the appellants were marketable and therefore exigible to the levy of excise duty. The finding recorded in the order of remand regarding the marketability of the goods and exigibility to the levy of excise duty having not been challenged, has become final and it is not open to the appellants to challenge the same. On the second point, we find that the appellants failed to bring any evidence on record to prove that the ....