9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposal of the appeal are as follows. Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of chemical preparations for photographic use. They filed price lists in part IV on 14-6-94 claming deduction on account of trade discount; additional discount, turnover discount, expenses on account of freight; transit insurance; octroi and other taxes; interest on receivables, secondary packing and central excise duty. The deduction claimed by the assessee was disputed by the department and notice dated 24-2-94 was issued calling upon them to show cause why turnover discount, interest on receivables and secondary packing should not be denied. Assistant Commissioner who went into the issue disallowed turnover discount, interest on receivables and cost of card ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time granted to him. That order of the Assistant Commissioner namely, order-in-original No. 66/98 dated 16/3/98 was taken up in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. Along with the appeal, assessee moved application for stay of recovery of the amount claimed in the original order. Commissioner dismissed that application by order dated 23-4-99 and directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount within two weeks therefrom. On the ground of non-compliance with the order of stay, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal pending before him. Assessee challenged the action of the Commissioner before this Tribunal in E/1941/99-A. That appeal was allowed by us vide final order No. 1567/99-A dated 9-11-99 and the matter was remitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Quantification of differential duty should be subject to the final decision on the appeal filed against order-in-original No. 12/94 dated 17-10-94. For such a quantification, show cause notice under Section 11A was not at all warranted. Be that as it may, in the instant case, when in appeal E/1941/99-A, this Tribunal remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo disposal, Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 5. In view of what has been stated above, we quash order-in-appeal No. 113-CE/BPL/2000, dated 24-1-2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). Order-in-original No. 66/98, dated 16-3-1998 had already been quashed by us in the earlier appeal. We direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
