9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may have already passed the de novo adjudication order as directed in the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal has lost its efficacy - appeal dismissed - decided against Department. - Excise Appeal Nos. 3357 - 3358 of 2006 - Final Order Nos. 50674 – 50675/2017 - Dated:- 2-2-2017 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Shri H. C. Saini, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also by way of imports and also from various 100% EOU s against the CT-3 certificates issued in terms of Notification No. 1/95-CE dated 04.01.95 (as amended). Apart from exports, the respondent assessee also sold their finished products in DTA against the advance DTA sale permission given to them by the Development Commissioner, NEPZ, Noida. The respondent-assessee imported the four consignment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeal) has remanded the matter to the original authority. The Commissioner observed in his order as under: 7. With regard to the impugned order dated 30.11.2005 (Appeal No. 42/2006), the duty demand has been made with reference to clearance of Polyester Made-ups (rejected goods) vide invoice No. 2 dated 24.04.2004. In this regard, I find from the Show Cause Notice in Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-consideration of the matter and for passing a denovo order after giving sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to submit their defence. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.11.2005 is set aside and the matter remanded to the lower authority for passing a fresh order. 8. In view of the discussion and findings record above, I hold that the penalty of ₹ 3,50,000/- and ₹ 10,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the original authority may have already passed the de novo adjudication order as directed in the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal has lost its efficacy . Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the department are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
