9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on such abatement availed by the appellant. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). During the pendency of such an appeal, ld. Commissioner, as a revisionary authority, issued a show-cause notice, as per provisions of section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. Held that - Commissioner could not have proceeded in reviewing said order in origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein had availed benefit of abatement of 75 per cent of the value of the GTA services. Lower authorities are of the opinion that appellant could not have availed the benefit of the said abatement in the absence of any evidence indicating the transporter having not availed Cenvat credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the differential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner held that the order of the adjudicating authority was correct in denying the benefit of abatement, but the order of the adjudicating authority was erroneous in not imposing penalty on the appellant under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Coming to such conclusion, he imposed penalty under section 76. Hence, this appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel draws our attention to the Order-in-Appeal passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in respect of any issue if an appeal against such issue is pending before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). (5) ...... ......." 6. It can be seen from the abovesaid section that the ld. Commissioner could not have proceeded in reviewing the said Order-in-Original. It is also on record that the appellant had not informed the ld. Commissioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
