9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal being not admissible. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron, M.S. Billets and other steel goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -cause notice dated 26.7.2013 proposing to demand the amounts of Rs. 5,10,943/- representing 5% or 10% of the value of the exempted final product cleared for the period 07/2008 to 02/2011 and Rs. 1,12,744/- being the Central Excise duty on dolachar and charcoal dust and fly ash cleared during the period 03/2011, besides proposing to recover the interest thereon; and for imposing penalties on them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and the merits of the case. He further submitted that when the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (A), it was listed for hearing and during the hearing also, the appellant argued on merit. He further submitted that the appeal was filed within time. He further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the appeal on time bar is not sustainable in law because the appeal was filed within the period of limitation as provided under law. Further, I find that the Order-in-Original is dated 12.3.2014 and the same was received by the appellant on 15.3.2014 as per the endorsement on the Order-in-Original and thereafter, the appeal was filed within two months as provided under Section 35 of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
