9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... npur did not have jurisdiction to issue any show cause notice and adjudicate the matter which involved the said issue - The Officer of the Rank of Commissioner is not expected to conduct in such improper manner. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - In APPEAL No. E/56791/2013 & 50778/2015-EX[DB] - A/70834-70835/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 7-3-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commr.) AR for Revenue Shri Anurag Mishra (Advocate) for Assessee Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Above stated two appeals are taken together for decision since the issue involved therein is related to abatement for the period from 11.06.2012 to 25.06.2012 in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration the working days. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the Department cannot withhold the lawful consequential benefit after sealing has been done and, therefore, allowed the appeal by setting aside the said Order-in-Original dated 15.10.2012 through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 08.01.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue has preferred present Appeal bearing No. E/56791/2013. On 04.02.2014 Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur issued M/s Raj Products with a show cause notice wherein it was stated that in view of said Order-in-Appeal dated 08.01.2013 M/s Raj Products took suo motto credit of ₹ 66,50,000/- which was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur confirmed the demand of ₹ 66,50,000/- with interest and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order M/s Raj Products is before this Tribunal through Appeal No. E/50778/2015. 3. Heard the learned counsel for M/s Raj Products who has submitted that through their letter dated 11.03.2013 they had submitted before the Deputy Commissioner that the said amount was allowed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and on the strength of the same they had taken credit of the said amount in their PLA account and, therefore, the allegations in the show cause notice dated 04.02.2014 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur were not sustainable. Further he has brought to the notice of this Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire act of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur of issue of said show cause notice dated 04.02.2014 and passing of impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.11.2014 amounting to adjudicating the issue which was pending before this Tribunal. The Officer of the Rank of Commissioner is not expected to conduct in such improper manner. With these observations we set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.11.2014 and uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 08.01.2014. In result we dismiss the Appeal bearing No. E/56791/2013 filed by Revenue and allowed the Appeal No. E/ 50778/2015 filed by M/s Raj Products. M/s Raj Products shall be entitled for consequential relief in accordance with law. (Dictated and pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
