2008 (11) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t re-rolled products. The petitioner's manufactured goods fall under chapter Heading 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 5-3-1998 calling upon him to show cause as to why a differential duty of Rs. 29,01,015/- should not be demanded and further penalty should not be imposed on them under the Central Excise Rules. At this stage, the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding before any appellate authority or High Court or the Supreme Court or no application for revision is pending before the Central Government on the date of declaration made under Section 88." 2. Before taking advantage of the concession granted by the Central Government, the petitioner filed a declaration under Form 1B before the authority for the purpose of availing the benefit under the KVS....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 10.5 lakhs pursuant to the interim order. However, Mr. Ravichandrababu, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents states that this would fall short of Rs. 4 lakhs. As 50% of Rs. 29 lakhs will come to Rs. 14.5 lakhs and therefore this would not amount to complying with the interim order. In any eve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... present notice was not the first notice and the finality has already been reached on the proceedings initiated against him. He also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lajya Dyeing & Bleaching Works v. Union of India and others reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 213 (S.C.) = (2003) 5 SCC 485, wherein, the Supreme Court in Paragraph No.14 observed as follows : "14. The question th....