Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2017 (8) TMI 1095

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and 28/10/1994, in the second round of litigation, the re-adjudication order has covered by order dated 30/11/2005 one more show-cause notice issued on 30/06/1995 during pendency of the re-adjudication. 2. Initially against the decision of learned adjudicating authority made on 05/06/1995 against above said four show cause notices, Revenue came in appeals before the Tribunal in the first round which was decided by order dated 02/01/2002. The dispute before the Tribunal was on the classification of the goods as to whether the goods conform to Indian Standard and whether the goods manufactured were branded or not. On assessment of the factual situation and evidence, Tribunal in para 3 of its order, found that the learned Commissioner did not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp;     410-CCU       2021-CDPMS        3031-CDPS       2023-CSOD       551-CMS       1551-CMS       5002-CPSO       5002-CPSOB       5001-CPDS       5001-CPDSB       5005-CPDD       5005-CPDD/BP       502-CPD/1       502-CPD/2       110/230-CTSS       502-BP/1       503-BP/1       503-BP/2       504-BP/1       504-BP/2       506-BP/1   &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee that learned adjudicating authority held that certain goods were in conformity with ISI standard without brand-name. The appellant itself being the owner of the brand name, under an assignment deed, the brand name was not of a different person. Such vital aspect was not considered by the learned authority. 3. Grievance of the Revenue is that the learned adjudicating authority carried out a detailed examination to decide whether the brand-name belonginged to the assessee. He negated that and held that no relief should be granted to assessee manufacturer in view of the overriding clauses of the Notification which reads as under: "Exemption to switches, plugs and sockets Heading 85.36 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....signment deed, the brand name was owned by the assessee exclusively. On the basis of outcome of his examination and enquiry, he shall be in a position to reach to a proper conclusion and decide notification benefit, if any, admissible. While carrying out such exercise, learned Authority shall also examine minutely all the other conditions specified in the notifications. During the course of scrutiny, appellant is entitled to a fair opportunity of hearing to plead on facts and law as well as adduce evidence, if any. 5.1. Assessee's further grievance is that while show cause notice was confined to demand of duty Rs. 68,54,995/- that should not have been enlarged to a higher demand of duty of Rs. 73,92,272/- in adjudication. Such plea needs s....