9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.S. Bhagat, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)].- Heard both sides. Appeal No. E/2433/01 2. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-4-2001 in which the lower appellate authority has set aside the penalty on the respondents and the partner in the respondent firm, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erger. 4. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR appearing for the department states that the earlier order-in-appeal dated 24-4-2001 dealt with only the penalty amount imposed on the respondents, whereas the order-in-review and the appeal before the lower appellate authority filed by the department was in respect of demand of duty from the respondents, since the duty was demanded from the merchant m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd perhaps the duty has been paid by the merchant manufacturer as per the order given by the original authority. He also states that while filing the appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 24-4-2001, the department did not challenged the original authority's order including the demand on merchant manufacturer before the Tribunal. 6. After considering submissions from both sides and perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied in this case and hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly applied the said doctrine by dismissing the Revenue's appeal filed in pursuance of the Order-in-Review. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order-in-appeal dated 24-4-2001 and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for decision on merits. 7. We, however, express no opinion regarding the merits of the case. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
