9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and imposition of penalty and confiscation of the seized goods would survive if it is held by the appellate authority that the part of the show cause notice is without jurisdiction. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Godrej Soaps v. C.C.E., Mumbai as reported at 2004 (174) E.L.T. 25 (Tri.-LB). 4. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to confiscate the seized goods and for demand of duty and for imposition of penalty and on adjudication, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n issued by an officer having jurisdiction. The above disputed issue has been referred to the Larger Bench." 6. After hearing all the appellants and respondent, Larger Bench came to the conclusion which is as under : "4. We are not in agreement with the observations of the Bench referring the matter to the Larger Bench that the order recorded in the case of Alcobex Metals (P) Ltd. is a cryptic order. After having gone through the said decision in the case of Alcobex Metals we find that the view of five Members of the Tribunal are available and it was, by majority held that the show cause notice cannot be segregated into portions for the purposes of demand of duty and for imposition of penalty and confiscation proceedings. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint were never agitated by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus it is deemed to have been accepted by the department. It has been strongly argued before us, that the Alcobex Metals decision having been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be doubted now by this Tribunal inasmuch as by applying 'Doctrine of merger' no issue remains open for further decision. We are fully in agreement with the above contention of the appellants that the Tribunal's decision stands merged with the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision and all the issues decided by the Tribunal, though not independently examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, attained the status of having been finally decided. As such we are of the view that the Alcobex decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
