9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) 1. These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB/04/TH-I/10 dated 11.01.2010. 2. Since both the appeals are directed against a very same impugned order, they are disposed of by a common order. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. On perusal of records, I find that appeal No. E/566/10 is filed by the appellant M/s Mohanlal Silk Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before him on findings against Mohanlal Silk Mills. When the revenue has not preferred any appeal against the adjudicating authoritys order in respect of appellant M/s Mohanlal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.; the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal is not maintainable and is dismissed as such as the findings of the first appellate authority are in respect of assessee Maharashtra Dying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed on each of them under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002." It can be seen from the above reproduced paragraph of show cause notice that Arvind Mohanlal Jain was not directed to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed on him. I also find that the first appellate authority did not issue any show cause notice to the appellant Shri Arvind Mohanlal Jain for impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
