9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against M/s. ACPL and cannot be legally sustainable - 1003 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2008 - K. Raviraja Pandian and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Shri T. Chandrasekaran, SCGSC, for the Appellant. [Judgment per : K. Raviraja Pandian, J.]. - The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the final order No. 728 of 2006, dated 10-8-2006 on the file of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d computers to M/s. Arihant Computers (P) Limited, (hereinafter referred to as "ACPL"), a trading company after filing price list with the Department. The clearance was made during November, 1991 to March, 1994 on payment of duty as applicable to Heading 84.71 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Department after investigation came to the conclusion that M/s. AMPL supplied semi-finished good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Customs and directed the Commissioner to apply to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (in short, "CESTAT") against the order of the Commissioner dropping the proceedings. Thus, the Commissioner filed an appeal before the CESTAT against AMPL in appeal No. E/832/1999. 3. Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of M/s. AMPL that inasmuch as no appeal had been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has been filed as provided under the Rules. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the prayer sought for was against the dropping of the demand order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, adjudication. The Board has directed the Commissioner to file an appeal to the Tribunal against all the three parties viz., M/s. ACPL, M/s. AMPL and Shri Chander Kothari. As against M/s. ACP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice against M/s. ACPL has become final, the Department cannot have any genuine grievance against the dropping of the penalty proposed, which is consequential to the violation alleged against M/s. ACPL and cannot be legally sustainable. 7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits, and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
