9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommr (AR), for appellant None for respondent ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are directed Order-in-Appeal No.AGS(175-177)139, 140, 141/2010 dated 16.07.2010 and AGS (75) 15/2011 dated 15.04.2011. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. 3. Since the issue falls in a narrow compass, I take up both the appeals for disposal in the absence of any representation from the respondent. 4. Learned D.R. reiterates the Grounds of Appeal. 5. On perusal of records I find that the first appellate authority has set aside the order-in-original vide which there was confirmed demand with interest and appropriation of an amount against the confirmed demand and penalties as well imposed on the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subsequent period has also been received by the appellant No.1. The present show-cause notice dated 05.03.2009 is issued for the period January 2008 and February 2008 which is already covered in the show-cause notice dated 15.05.2008. I find that this plea of multiple proceedings for same period needs certain attention. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad issued demand dated 15.05.2008 on basis of average electricity consumption during the period under dispute. It means the total possible quantity that appellant no.1 would have manufactured during the said period was covered by way of theoretical calculation. The demand so raised was confirmed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad vide order-in-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only on natural persons and not upon the company. 5.1 In the grounds of appeal, Revenue is seeking to set aside the impugned order on the ground that the first appellate authority has failed to consider the fact that the respondent has not paid the amount of duty calculated on the basis of electricity consumption as per report of Prof Batra, IIT, Kanpur and the first appellate authority has not come to a definite conclusion on the basis of evidence produced by the appellant with the case of meritable proceedings. I find that in the grounds of appeal, Revenue has not come out with any ground stating that the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority by order-in-original dated 25.03.2010 was not covered by order-in-original No.73/C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
