9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4-2-93 in an appeal filed by the Department against Order-in-Original No. 3/98, dated 31-3-98. Mainly two contentions are raised by the appellant. It is submitted that Order-in-Original No. 3/98 has attained fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in CCE, Bhubaneswar v. Oripol Industries - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 278. 2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala falling under Tariff Heading 2106 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Under a show cause notice dated 12-1-98 for the period 1-4-94 to 14-11-95 the Department proposed to disallow certain deduction. Proposals were upheld by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-Original No. 3/98, dated 31-3-98 had already merged in the Final Order dated 26-7-2000 passed by this Tribunal. Learned Departmental Representative tried to contend relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mauria Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-II - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.) that since the issue considered by this Tribunal in Final Order dated 26-7-2000 was not the same which was conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue to file an appeal from the Order-in-Original in respect of a different item of deduction claimed by the assessee which would affect the quantum of duty due from it. We, therefore, hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in the light of the Final Order passed by this Tribunal dated 26-7-2000. We are also of the view that in the light of the La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
