9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. for Revenue and Shri Udit Jain, ld. Advocate for the respondent - assessee. 2. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dated 9.7.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur II. The respondent/assessee had preferred an appeal against the adjudication order dated 8.11.2000, whereby the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur II, ordered recovery o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944. 3. That appeal was partly allowed by the appellate Commissioner, following the judgment of this Tribunal in an appeal preferred by another similarly situated assessee - M/s Euro Cotspin Ltd.; reported in 2001 (127) ELT 52 (Tri-Del.). The Euro Cotspin judgment concluded that even in a case of clandestine removal, the benefit of exemption Notification No.2/95-CE must be granted. Followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the said yarn as mentioned in the show cause notice dated 16.12.1999. The appellate Commissioner also held that since penalty equivalent to duty amount was imposed, penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed under Rules 9(2), 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the penalty of Rs.20,000/- imposed under Section 112 of the Custom Act, 1962, is set aside. 4. By a separate order today we have dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis for the order of the appellate Commissioner has become inoperative and stood eclipsed. Since this judgment is the only basis for the order of the appellate Commissioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The matter is now remanded for fresh consideration on by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur II and shall be disposed of expeditiously and in ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
