9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes, for the Appellant. Shri V. Chaudhry, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice S.N. Jha, President]. - These appeals arising from the common order-in-original of Commissioner of Central Excise dated 23-3-2007 were taken up for hearing on the point of waiver of pre-deposit. In Appeal No. E/2968/07 (Satvik Industries) penalty of Rs. 1,06,01,497/- has been imposed on the appellant. In Appeal No. E/1786/07 (Kumar Industries) a duty of Rs. 47,181/- after disallowing Cenvat credit claimed by the appellant has been levied and a penalty of equal amount has also been imposed. In Appeal No. 1787/07 (Sameer Bajaj), the appellant has been imposed with a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. In Appeal No. E/2015/07 (Genius Electrical and Electron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s they failed to appear on different dates fixed and therefore, they were not entitled to argue that the opportunity of hearing was not given. 3. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and also perused the records. After giving anxious consideration of the cases of the parties, we are of the view that it will be fit and appropriate to direct the Commissioner to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants, on merits. 4. A doubt arose whether in the event the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner, any claim for refund would arise. We may at this stage mention that while M/s. Satvik Industries has not made any payment towards the impugned de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants will give full cooperation to the Commissioner during the course of fresh hearing. 5. In the result, the impugned orders of the Commissioner are set aside and the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 6. After we dictated the order, the learned Departmental Representative pointed out that by the impugned order of the Commissioner certain duty amounts have been levied on the parties which are not in appeal. It is made clear that the impugned order has been set aside only with respect to the appellants who are in appeal before the Tribunal and only they are entitled to fresh adjudication. We further clarify that in view of the direction to the Commissioner to pass fresh order, the deposit made by the appellant, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
