9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MV dated 31.3.1998 was issued to the appellants wherein it was alleged that they were using the brand name of foreign company and thus they are not eligible for SSI exemption claimed by them. The said show-cause notice was dropped by the Dy. Commissioner on the ground that as the foreign company not registered in India, no one has the right to claim the exclusive right of the brand and there is no nexus between the ownership of the foreign brand name and the appellants. The said order was challenged by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 3.3.2001 set aside the adjudication order against which the appellants preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs by higher appellate authorities i.e. Hon'ble CEGAT, who has passed the Order on technical grounds, & Comm (A), who has decided the issue on merits, & both the decisions have been accepted by the department. Hence, I proceed to decide as to which of the decisions should be made applicable in this case." In this connection, I rely on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC) wherein it is held that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. That the order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings were going on the appellants left the place where they were having registered office and shifted to some other place. No communication of filing of appeal and personal hearing could be served on the appellants due to change of address. The Commissioner (Appeals) on 8.7.2005 passed the impugned order on merits wherein it was held that the appellants are not entitled for exemption as claimed by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the department's appeal and set aside the order in original. Against that order, appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Ld. advocate for the appellants appeared and submitted that appellants did not receive any notice of hearing and were not aware of any proceedings going o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and no appeal has been filed against the said order. When the said issue has attained finality, protective show-cause notice is not maintainable. In this case, the protective show-cause notice was issued to the appellants while the proceedings were pending before this Tribunal and the same was not brought in the knowledge of the Tribunal. If there is any grievance of the department, they should have come before this Tribunal in the proceedings which were pending there. As department did not take any steps to contest the issue before this Tribunal and the same has attained finality which has been followed by the adjudicating authority in this case as judicial discipline, the show-cause notice was dropped. In the impugned order, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
