TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also posted for being heard by a Larger Bench along with Appeal No. E/1530/2001 on the question of merger. 2. The present appeal at the instance of Revenue is directed against order-in-appeal No. 1281/C.E., Chd/2K, dated 30-6-2000 in which the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the amount of duty as demanded by the Assistant Commissioner but set aside the penalty. Against the above order the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total realization by the assessee. It was held that the authorities had wrongly computed the assessable value treating the sale price as assessable value. The matter was remitted to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner for recomputing the Central Excise duty correctly and directing the appellant to make payment of the duty on such re-computation. 4. The present appeal was filed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order should be taken and decided together. On account of the mistake of the Tribunal in not clubbing the two appeals, statutory right of appeal of one party cannot be so negatived. The doctrine of merger will not be applicable in such circumstances. 5. In the present case it was due to a mistake that the two appeals were not heard together. When the assessee's appeal was disposed of, apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
