2008 (4) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and had imposed on them equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The demand of duty was consequential to denial of SSI benefit on the ground such benefit was not admissible to the goods in question which had been cleared under another person's brandname. The extended period of limitation was invoked on the ground that the use of another person's brandname had been wilfully suppressed before the department with intent to evade payment of duty. Against the order of adjudication, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter by Order-in-Appeal No. 67/2000 dated 11.10.2000 sustained the demand of duty but vacated the penalty. Against the appellate order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal of the assessee is that the lower appellate authority acted beyond the scope of the remand order. According to the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have recorded a finding that duty was demandable only for the normal period of six months. In other words, according to the assessee, this Tribunal had already arrived at such a finding in its remand order and the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to reiterate that finding. This submission of the appellants, reiterated by their counsel, cannot be accepted. The remand ordered by this Bench in Final Order dated 8.8.2001 was for de novo decision on the limitation issue and, accordingly, the lower appellate authority has rendered decision on the said issue, which is very much w....