9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/MRT-1/2009-10 dated 25/02/2010. Therefore, these are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were manufacturers of Calcium Carbonate. On investigation, it appeared that the respondents were clearing Calcium Carbonate manufactured/ cleared in the garb of Hydrated Lime/ Calcite Powder. Therefore, they were issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 31/03/2005 demanding differential Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 33,65,475/- for the period from April, 2000 to September, 2004. Further, there was a proposal to impose a personal penalty on Shri Vikas Karnwal - Director, Shri Darshan Kumar Jain - Proprietor, Smt. Kusum Singla - Proprietor, Shri Sanjay Sharma - Partner under Rule 209A of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough Order-in-Original No. 31-32/ADC/MRT-1/2008 dated 29/05/2008 droped the proceedings initiated through above stated two Show Cause Notices. 4. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 29/05/2008 Revenue preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the said appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 220-CE/MRT-I/2009-10 dated 25/02/2010. The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the Adjudicating Authority had properly examined all the relevant aspects as per the remand directions of the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) through Order-in-Appeal No. 166-169-CE/MRT-I/2007 dated 24/08/2007 and arrived at a well reasoned and speaking order and only thereafter dropped the proceedings and in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first appellant stage. There is neither any reference to the findings of the Appellate Authority nor the terms of remand before the Adjudicating Authority to decide. The memorandum of appeal did neither specify the points for determination nor controverted the findings which have arisen out of the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority, as per the remand directions of the Commissioner (Appeals). As already discussed in the foregoing paras, the jurisdiction of the lower authority in a de-novo proceeding is limited to the terms of the order of remand and the entire matter was not at large before the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate. If the department had any misgivings about the findings of the Appellate Authority at the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
