9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Sunil Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. The appellants challenge the order dated 29-11-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh. By the impugned order, the appeal which was filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals), was dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that the appellants were availing Cenvat credit and was paying duty @ 8% in terms of Rule 57AD(2)(b), though the clearance of the goods was governed by Rule 57-AB(ic) of the Central Excise Rules. Being dissatisfied, the appellants carried the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein while rejecting the application for stay, the appellants were directed to deposit the entire amount dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said expression under the Central Excise Act. Had the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the said aspect, there would have been no occasion for the appellate authority to insist for deposit of the amount demanded under the order passed by the original authority. On the other hand, learned DR submitted that the original authority on adjudication of the order had confirmed the duty liability of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gher gauge, the authorities cannot ignore the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Technoweld Industries. Certainly, therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants, before passing the impugned order it was necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) to take into consideration the effect of the said decision on the facts of the case in hand and not to pass the order ig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
