TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to June 96 respectively. 2. The appellants are manufacturing electric fans falling under sub-heading 8421.20 and are marketing the same through their related concern M/s. Ravi Marketing Ltd. The adjudicating authority had confirmed differential duty that was found to have been short paid by the appellants in relation to the price declaration, claiming deduction on account of average freight, advance payment discount octroi and dharamada and had also imposed penalty. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing three appeals filed against three different orders passed by the adjudicating authority held thus - I have considered the oral and written submission made by the Appellant. The appeals are being disposed of after dispensing wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court in the case of CCE v. Panchmukhi Engineering Works - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 550 (S.C.). As regard the differential amount of duty on account of wrong availment of deductions in respect of the other deductions viz average freight and transit insurance and average cash/advance payment discount, the Appellants were found to have short paid duty in relation to the prices approved vide other Order-in-Original No. 29/96/Val/AC dated 29-2-96. Since the said order has attained finality in respect of the deductions other then interest on debtors receivable, the duty demanded and confirmed in relation to the approved price declarations is in order and upheld. The amount of penalty, being reasonable, is not interfered with . 4. Learned Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to the Order-in-Original No. 29/96/VAL/AC dated 29-2-1996 in the matter of the appellants themselves when in fact there was no such order passed in case of appellants either of the number quoted in the order or on the date mentioned therein. On the other hand, there is an order passed in the matter of Rewa Fan Industries which disclose No. 29/96/VAL/AC dated 27/29-2-96 wherein Asstt. Commissioner had allowed the deductions on the said dates. Learned Advocate has also drawn our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Ravi Fans Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad as well as in the appellant s own case which was delivered under Order No. 539-542/09-Ex.- 2010 (249) E.L.T. 226 (Tribunal) which related to the claim relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of to arrive at a logical conclusion. It is not permissible for the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the matter in a criptic manner. It has been disposed of without taking into consideration the points which were sought to be raised against the order passed by the adjudicating authority in relation to the matter in issue. Perusal of the appeal memo before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the written submissions which had been filed before him discloses that the appellants had raised various points in relation to the said issue and therefore, it was necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with all those points. However, the impugned order does not disclose any such exercise having been done by the Commissioner (Appeals). Undoubted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
