9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2014 passed by the Tribunal and the said order of the Tribunal was also upheld by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE III VERSUS KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. [ 2018 (2) TMI 820 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Thus, under the circumstances of the case, the doctrine of merger applies to the case in hand and since the order dated 26.08.2013 is no more in existence, in our considered view, the appeal filed by Revenue against such original order cannot be sustained for judicial scrutiny. Further, the prayer made by Revenue in this appeal cannot also be sustained inasmuch as the order dated 26.08.2013 was passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, pursuant to the limited remand directions made in the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-13 dated 29.06.2012 by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Commissionerate, Pune. In the said order, the original authority has denied the benefit of provided under notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003 and 153/93-Cus. dated 13.08.1993 on the ground that such benefit was not available to the respondent in terms of the permission granted by the IMSC. Besides, the said order had also confirmed the customs duty liability along with interest and also imposed penalties on the respondents under various provisions contained in the Act of 1962. 1.2 Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 29.06.2012, the respondent herein had filed appeals before the Tribunal, which was disposed of vide Order No. S/57 to 60/13/EB/C-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tum of duty, which the respondent is liable to pay at the time of de-bonding, by taking into account their entitlement to depreciation on the capital goods sought to be de-bonded in terms of the rates prescribed under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. and No.22/2003-CE from the date of installation/putting to use of the capital goods, till the date of debonding. 1.5 Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 01.04.2014 (supra), passed by the Tribunal, the department had filed appeal being No. 133 of 2016 before the Hon ble Bombay High Court. Vide Judgement dated 22.01.2018, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon ble High Court. 2. In the present appeal, Revenue has assailed the order dated 26.08.2013 (for short as referred a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be sustained inasmuch as the order dated 26.08.2013 was passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, pursuant to the limited remand directions made in the Order dated 29.06.2012 by the Tribunal. Furthermore, the subsequent order dated 01.04.2014 passed by the Tribunal in response to the appeal filed against the original order 26.08.2013 was entirely under different context or set of facts and there is no whisper to the subject matter of confiscation of the capital goods and imposition of redemption fine thereon, which is the subject matter of present appeal. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by Revenue and therefore, the same is dismissed. ( Operative part of the order pronounced in the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
