2017 (4) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri M.H. Patil with Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal of the Revenue was admitted by this Court on 4th April, 2006. It was placed for directions today to find out as to whether the issue raised and the questions on which the appeal has been admitted by terming them as substantial questions of law survive for determination. 2. Since both sides....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty provision under Section 11AC with interest under Section 11AB proposed. Following our decision in appellants own case vide Order No. A/589/WZB/ 05/C-1, dated 12-5-2005 para 8 thereof, this recovery under provision of Section 11D cannot be upheld. In any case, resort to rule 9(2) read with Section 11A is bad in law since the recovery under Section 11D is not a levy of duty under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paying Central Excise duty on their ex-factory price upto 28th September, 1996. They started paying the Central Excise duty on their depot price from 25th October, 1996. However, they did not pay the differential duty on their stock as on 24th October, 1996 on which they had already paid Central Excise duty on ex-factory price. The assessee was called upon to pay differential duty on the stock lyi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Commissioner. The differential duty was paid on 25th May, 1998. That was to the tune of Rs. 38,33,724/-. Thus, the detailed findings of the Commissioner and as appearing from Pages 46-47 of the paperbook had not been considered at all. Similarly, whether the fact situation in the present case is identical to the assessee's own case referred in the Tribunal's order has also not been considered in....