9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half of the respondents. No request for adjournment has been also received. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original on the simple ground that no show cause notice was served on the respondents before confirming the duty a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d short. The duty paid by them was of Rs. 4,46,316/- vide PLA Entry No. 391, dated 20-11-97. 4. It is also evident from the order-in-original that the respondents through their letter dated 20-11-97 requested the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise for waiver of the show cause notice and requested for early adjudication. Thereafter, the case was put up before the Additional Commissioner. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice was served on the respondents in terms of Section 11A of the Act. He has relied upon the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Madhumillan Syntex P. Ltd. - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 349 and CCE v. Kosan Metal Products - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 573 wherein it has been observed that without issuance show cause notice no duty demand can be confirmed under Section 11A. But in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the goods and their liability to pay duty in respect thereof. Under these circumstances the proposition of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex P. Ltd. and Kosan Metal Products (supra) could not be made applicable to the respondents case. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone through the facts narrated in the order-in-original before passing the impugned order. He has not cared to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
