9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the impugned order, wherein the lower appellate authority has held that, as the respondent has preferred an appeal against the same adjudication order and the same has been decided by the first appellate authority, the appeal filed by the Revenue merges with that order and, therefore, the department's appeal is not maintainable. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, during adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appellate authority, but the lower appellate authority, without going into the merits of the appeal of the Revenue, held that, as the respondent's appeal has already been rejected and adjudication order has been confirmed by the lower appellate authority, therefore, that order has attained finality and hence the appeal of the department not maintainable as doctrine of merger is applicable to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of this case. On merits also, we have examined the case wherein the adjudicating authority in the adjudication order has observed that: "I find that the duty amount of Rs. 30,09,423.60 was paid by the assessee on 16.03.2001 and show cause notice was issued on 06.08.2001. I, therefore, hold that the delay of payment was due to switching over from Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty is leviable. The Hon'ble apex court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC) has also observed the same view. It is apparent from the facts of the case that there is no charge against the respondent that they have evaded /short-paid the duty by way of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts or in contravention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
