TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne for the Appellant. Shri D.K. Saha, J.D.R., for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (Judicial)] . - From a perusal of the papers in this appeal it would appear that- (a) the instant appeal was filed on 4-8-1983 against an order dated 7-5-1983 of the Collector (Appeals) remanding the matter to the adjudicating officer for a de novo consideration of a demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal adjourned the appeal sine die to await the de novo consideration of the case by the adjudicating officer as well as the order that may be made by the Collector (Appeals) in any appeal that may be preferred against it; (d) the adjudicating officer on a reconsideration of the case after remand, passed another order in May 1984, reducing the demand to Rs. 14,488.20 (out of the original amount d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions sent to the Tribunal may be taken into consideration in deciding the appeal. The appeal was then adjourned to 11-3-1986. 2. No one was present on 11-3-1986 as well. We have heard Shri Saha for the Respondent. 3.It is observed that- (a) the question of the use of power in the manufacture of goods in question was incidental to an adjudication of the notice to show cause requiring payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntirely on the finding given on any issue crucial for a decision of the case in part or wholly; (c) an appeal is provided against an adverse order in adjudication and not against an adverse finding on any particular issue that may arise in the course of adjudication. It is not as if one can maintain an appeal against an adverse finding on any issue notwithstanding that the order in adjudication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
