9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent (s): Shri G. P. Thomas, Authorised Representative Per: Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. These two appeals are filed against OIA No. OIA-76-2008-AHD-I-CE-ID-COMMR-A- dated 18/06/2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-Ahmedabad. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant's factory was visited by the officers of central Excise dept. on 27.07.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and the amount already deposited adjusted against the said demand also penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant company and personal penalty of Rs. 3 Lakhs on the partner of the company. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeals before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit by clubbing the clearance value of both the units either before the adjudicating authority or before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) and paid the duty ; they had challenged the denial of cum-duty-price benefit and imposition of penalty, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly not considered the aspect of clubbing of both the units on merit. The Ld. AR for the revenue vehemently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dealt with the issue of clubbing of these two Units and restricted the findings to the applicability of cum-duty-price benefit and imposition of penalty. Ld. AR for the Revenue, vehemently opposed to the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant in raising the issue of correctness of clubbing of both the units and pleaded that the appellant before the adjudicating authority did not raise th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
