9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Shri Manoj Pillai, Advocate For the Appellant Shri J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which the learned Commissioner remanded the matter for re-quantification of the duty demand by the lower authorities. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are running a Restaurant and Bakery in which coffee, tea, fruit juices and ice creams are served. The appellant also used to sell the bakery products to the customers who want to take their items to their home. In the restaurant bread was exhibited in the glass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Six only) and imposed an equal amount of penalty. While quantifying the duty liability, the adjudicating authority took the entire receipt as cum-duty. Thereafter appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner who dispose of the appeal by remanding the case for de novo adjudication. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without finding sufficient evidence regarding the use of brand name of Hot Bread used by the appellant for bread items only. He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-quantify the duty demanded after allowing the admissible deduction for the sales effected in the restaurant. 4.1. The appellant instead of going before the lower adjudicating authority as per the impugned order, filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order on the ground cited surpa. The learned AR submitted that on merit appellant has no case but he has no objection if the case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority in the light of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. After considering the submissions from both the sides, we think it appropriate to direct the appellant to approach the lower adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand. The appellant is directed to produce all the docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
