SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

K.L.REKHI, G.P.AGARWAL
Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
Intercon Engineers (P. ) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.K. Ajwani,C. Chidambaram

ORDER

K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

1. These are two appeals filed by the department. They arise out of two separate Orders-in-Appeals as stated above. Although, the appellant Collector filed only one consolidated appeal, the said appeal has been given two appeal numbers for the sake of record and since no fees are required to be paid by the department. The two appeals seek restoration of the following two demands for differential central excise duty :-

1. Demand for Rs. 1,10,620.96. This demand has been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground of time bar ;

(2) The demand for Rs. 49,431.41. This demand was included in the show cause notice. In his Order-in-Original, the Assistant Collector upheld the merits of this demand but inadvertently he omitted to confirm the demand specifically in the final Order portion. Though the department had filed a separate appeal before the Collector (Appeals) for restoration of this demand, Collector (Appeals) did not advert to it but set aside the department's appeal on the ground that he had already allowed the appeal of the respondents against the very same Order-in-original.

2. The respondents manufacture machinery like Veener driers, hydraulic p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top