9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri V. Valte, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Both the above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the different orders-in-appeal both dated 30-4-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the orders-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner who confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on them, as detailed in those orders. The demand has been confirmed ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been allowed to two units from the date of filing of their application. He has also stated that even their application, seeking permission of the sharing of the charges etc. had not been decided by the Commissioner in accordance with law and only intimation was given by the Asstt. Commissioner that the permission granted to them shall be prospective in operation. The impugned orders according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh proper application dated 17-2-1998 before the competent authority i.e., Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. But there is nothing on the record to show, if any speaking order after hearing them was ever passed on their application. The perusal of the copy of the letter dated 25-9-2000 which was despatched on 3-10-2000 shows that the Asstt. Commissioner (Customs) informed the appellants t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for sharing the charges inter se to them, as prayed by them, could not be made prospective in operation, rather it has to be from the date when the appellants filed the application i.e. 17-2-1998. 4. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained and the same are set aside. The appellants are permitted to share the supervisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
