9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed to be reduced by this amount. It has also been admitted by the respondent-assessees that the amount of claimed abatement is reduced from the total amount, the only duty payable by them comes to ₹ 44,00,000/-. After perusal of the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that while deciding the matter, he has relied on the certain facts, which were actually not present before the Original Adjudicating Authority nor they have contended/presented before the Original Adjudicating Authority by the respondent-assessee. The Order-in-Appeal is devoid of any merits - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - Appeal No. E/2356/2005-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 60445 of 2019 - Dated:- 2-4-2019 - MR. ASHOK JIND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V-30(62)D/98/2395-97 Dated 30.09.1998 12,00,000 03/98 to 06/98 3 V-30(9) D/99/120-122 Dated 12.01.1999 15,00,000 07/98 to 11/98 4 V-30/69/D/99/212 Dated 02.07.1999 12,50,000 12/98 to 04/99 5 V20/MISC/DMD/NGL/RPR/8/98/449 Dated 09.11.1999 15,00,000 05/99 to 10/99 2. The matter was adjudicated by the learned Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C.E. vs. Venus Castings Pvt Ltd 2000 (117) ELT 273 (S.C.) and in the case of U.O.I. vs. Supreme Steels And General Mills 2001 (133) ELT 513 (S.C.) are not relevant as the facts have mentioned by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order were not present before the Original Adjudicating Authority. It has therefore been contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in dropping the demand on flimsy grounds which were actually not presented. The learned Departmental Representative also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the facts of the matter and has dropped the amount of duty without any valid and factual grounds. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
