TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 16-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of door lock assembly of motor vehicles and are also availing Modvat credit facility. They received purchase orders from M/s. Mahindra Mahindra for the supply of 2,00,000 pieces of door ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposed to be invoked against them as they suppressed the receipt of these amounts from the Excise department. The Additional Commissioner who adjudicated the show cause notice, dropped the demand of Rs. 49,576/- in respect of the advances received from M/s. Mahindra Mahindra, but confirmed demand of Rs. 1,14,407/- regarding advances received from M/s. TELCO and imposed equal amount of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly dealt with the issue and fairly enough, but how and in what manner, has not discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. The impugned order passed by him is non-speaking and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. 5. The learned Counsel has also referred to the case law on the issue involved in the present appeal, referred to above. He has placed reliance on CCE, Pune ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the matter deserves to be re-examined at the hands of the adjudicating authority afresh in the light of the law laid down in the above referred cases. 6. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with the law, in the light of the discussions made above, after hearing both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
