TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has filed these appeals under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') against the final order Nos.155-159 of 2002 dated 29.4.2002 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal Nos.E/1484-1485/2000-B, E/1895-1896/2000-B, E/1869/2000-B whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the respondents herein and set aside the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise(Adj.), New Delhi. Facts in the case of M/s. India Thermit Corporation Ltd.: M/s India Thermit Corporation Ltd., respondent No.1 herein, (for short 'ITCL') is engaged in the manufacture of 'Thermit Portion' and 'Thermit Welding Equipments'. Respondent was classifyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Central Excise(Adjudication), authority in original, by his order dated 31.1.2000 confirmed the demand for differential duty of Rs.62,60,022/- on ITCL and imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Rule 9(2), 226 and 173Q of the Rules along with Section 11AC of the Act. Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) was also imposed on Shri Alok Nagory, Managing Director of ITCL under Rule 209A of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, ITCL and its Managing Director filed appeals before the Tribunal. Facts in the case of M/s.Asiatic Thermics Ltd. M/s Asiatic Thermics Ltd., respondent No.3 herein, (for short 'ATL') is engaged in the manufacture of dry moulds and thermit welding equipments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Rule 9(2), 226 and 173Q of the Rules along with Section 11AC of the Act. Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) was also imposed on Shri R.S.Maheshwari and Shri Alok Nagory, Managing Director of ITCL under Rule 209A of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, ATL, Director of ATL and Shri Alok Nagory, Managing Director of ITCL filed appeals before the Tribunal.Tribunal by its common impugned order, being the first appellate authority, considered the matter elaborately and by recording detailed reasons allowed the appeals filed by the respondents both on merits as also on limitation. In the case of ITCL, on the issue of valuation, it held that the highest of the price for bulk sale t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... become final and not been challenged by the department. The present show cause notice dated 18.1.1999 has been issued more than three years after the first show cause notice dated 27.11.1995 was issued covering the same issues to twelve clearances of thermit portions and valuation of dry moulds. It was further held by the Tribunal that the impugned order overlaps the earlier adjudication orders in respect of period from 7.3.1995 to 31.3.1995. We agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Since, the department has accepted the earlier adjudications on the same issue for part of the period, revenue cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same point for a part of the remaining period. There cannot be second proceedings raising the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
