9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the four orders in original to the appellants. We, therefore, are of the view that one appeal filed by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) is maintainable and there was no need for the appellant to file four separate appeals against one order in original. As regards the stay petitions filed by the appellant, appellant directed to deposit the entire amount of duty involved in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4A of the Act and chargeable to duty upon MRP basis. Department felt that physician sample should be assessed on pro-rata basis, taking the value under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, four show cause notices on 06.10.2010, 13.01.2011; 09.3.2011 and on 02.6.2011 were issued. These show cause notices were confirmed by the original authority by a single order dated 29.11.2011. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that they have submitted single appeal against the same order in original, as the order in original has decided the four show cause notices by a single order and no four serial numbers were given by the adjudicating authority. In the appeal, they have mentioned the entire duty confirmed in respect of the all the four show cause notices. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Silvassa on 29.11.2011 and the order was dispatched vide F.No.V(Ch.30)2-28/DEM/10-11/3943 dated 29.11.2011. We note that original authority had dispatched only one order in original and not the four orders in original to the appellants. We, therefore, are of the view that one appeal filed by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) is maintainable and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
