9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002-C.E., dated 4-4-2002. The Commissioner allowed the departmental appeal in so far as the classification of 3 items viz. Oil gauge, Front Stand Pin and Hub Pin, Seat Steering Clutch and Shoe Steering Clutch. The appellants have accepted the said classification adopted by the Commissioner in terms of the impugned order and has paid the differential duty. The Commissioner had merely observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19A/2000, dated 13-3-2000 by which the above named penalties were imposed and hence he cannot consider the cross-objection on this aspect. 2. The learned Counsel strenuously argued the matter and contended that before the Commissioner (Appeals), they had filed a cross-objection in the departmental appeal and, therefore, they are deemed to have filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entertain cross-objections after a lapse of 17 months, the Commissioner has rightly rejected their cross-objection and held that the Order-in-Original imposing penalty against the appellants is justified. It was further submitted that in terms of Section 35E(4), the provisions of Section 35B(4) applies "so far as may be, apply to such application". In other words, cross-objection before Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) on the portion of order not appealed by them. Therefore, we are in agreement with the argument of the learned SDR and the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the penalties imposed in Order-in-Original has become final as no appeal was filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no merit in these appeals and the same are rejected. - - TaxTM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
