Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Raipur vs M/S P.C.C. Pole Factory on 28 April, 2010

        

 

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
			West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi.

		Date of hearing/decision: 28.04.2010
For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.


2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 


3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?


4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?



Excise Appeal  No. 5682 of   2004 with C.O. No. 171 of 2006
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 182-183/RPR-II/2004 dated 24.8.2004   passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Raipur].

CCE, Raipur				 			Appellants

Vs.

M/s P.C.C. Pole Factory						Respondent

Appearance: Rep. by Sh. R.K. Verma, DR for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Coram: Honble Sh. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President Honble Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Oral order No._____ Per: Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar:

Heard the learned DR for the appellant. None present for the respondent though service of notice.

2. The appeal arises from order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing the appeal which was filed by the respondent herein.

3. The dispute relates to the assessable value of the product. However, it is apparent from the record and the finding arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no final adjudication by the authority inasmuch as the assessment of duty was provisional and the fact that there was the bond executed under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the same was renewed is also not in dispute. In these circumstances, we find it too pre-mature to interfere in the matter and hence, we dismiss the appeal.

[Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar] President [Rakesh Kumar] Member [Technical] /Pant/