9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 25C.E./LKO/2000, dated 27-3-2000; that while discussing the facts of the subject cases only case involving duty amounting to Rs. 2,95,860/- was taken into account and penalty had been reduced to Rs. 50,000/-; that the Hon ble Tribunal has neither discussed the other remaining cases involving duty amounting to Rs. 12,20,951/- and Rs. 7,59,817/- and penalty of equal amount nor has passed any order in respect of penalty imposed in these orders. 2. Arguing the case for the Commissioner, Central Excise, Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned DR submits that a reading of paras 1, 2 and 3 shows clearly that the Tribunal had before it only that case in which the demand of duty of Rs. 2,95,860/- was considered. He refers to para 1, para 2 and para 3. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reful consideration of the submissions made we note that in terms of para 1 all the three appeals arising out of the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 23 to 25-C.E./LKO/2000, dated 27-3-2000 were considered. However in the first para only one Order-in-Original is mentioned and the remaining two Orders-in-Original which were disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) by one order were not mentioned. This is a mistake apparent on the face of the records. Para 1 of the impugned order is, therefore, modified to read as, By the captioned appeals the Revenue had prayed for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 23 to 25-C.E./LKO/2000, dated 27-3-2000 and in restoring the Order-in-Original No. 117/99/Demand/ Modvat/29/99, dated 12-10-99, 60/99/Demand/Modvat/43 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le and the Order Sheet of the day we note that when the case was heard on 14-8-2000 the following order was pronounced in the open Court; Duty shall be payable @ 8% on the entire quantity of rectified spirit. Penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q. Detailed order to follow . All these things show that penalty of Rs. 50,000/- pertained to all the three appeals. At the time of dictating the order in chamber only figures of assessable value, duty demand and penalty imposed were recorded in respect of one order but the reading of the order as a whole does not have any doubt in our mind that reduction of penalty to Rs. 50,000/- pertained not only in one case but to all the three cases. Moreover, the order was pronounced in the open Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
