9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner in his reply dated 3-4-2013 furnishing a copy. The first respondent after referring to the two orders, passed the impugned order, when the first respondent ought not have placed reliance, since on such order has been stayed by the CESTAT and the other order has been reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and proceeded to confirm the demand. The manner in which the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent, cannot be appreciated. It is admitted by the respondents that as against the order in appeal dated 30-1-2013, the Department has preferred an appeal to the CESTAT and the same is now pending before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals) and stay was granted by the CESTAT. 5. The following facts and reasoning support the above conclusion. (a) The petitioner Firm are the manufacturers of Step Fan Regulator and T.V. Co-axial Socket Outlet under the brand name of MK owned by M/s Honey Well Electrical Devises and Systems (I) Ltd., falling under Chapter Heading 8529 9090. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4-3-2013, alleging that the petitioner has not adopted the assessable value in accordance with clause (ii) of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisible goods) Rules, 2000, thereby short payment of Excise Duty. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why - (a) the differentia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst respondent in paragraph No. 15.0 of the impugned order proceeded to refer to the order in original dated 3-9-2010 and the order in original dated 29-2-2012. The order in original dated 3-9-2013 is now the subject matter of appeal before the CESTAT and the CESTAT by order dated 31-7-2012, has granted waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit and stayed the collection of duty during the pendency of the appeal. In so far as the order in original dated 29-12-2012 is concerned, that order has been reversed by an order in appeal dated 30-1-2013 and that was pointed out by the petitioner in his reply dated 3-4-2013 furnishing a copy. The first respondent after referring to the two orders, passed the impugned order, when the first respondent ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
