2004 (2) TMI 495

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Vide the impugned order Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the respondents claim for abatement of duty for the period when their unit was lying closed. 2. The said order is challenged by the Revenue on the ground that the original order as regards abatement was passed by the Additional Commissioner which was beyond jurisdiction i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. We also note that the Revenue has not challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. If they were of the view that the Additional Commissioner should not have passed orders in respect of abatements, it was open to the Revenue to file an appeal there against before Commissioner (Appeals) on this limited issue. Having not done that, it is not open to the Revenue now to challenge t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X