2011 (9) TMI 869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dent. ORDER This application of the appellant, registered wrongly as ROA application, seeks certain modification of Final Order No. 1298/2010, dated 20-10-2010 [2011 (265) E.L.T. 121 (Tribunal)] passed by this bench in Appeal No. E/819/2008. The applicant in this application points out that the final order did not advert to one of the prayers contained in the memo appeal, which reads thus : "Se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eard learned JCDR also. 2. After a perusal of the records and considering the submissions of both sides, we note that the purport of the impugned order (order-in-appeal) passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was rightly understood by this bench while remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue debated before it. The final order passed by this bench indicates .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... only wanted the original authority to requantify the duty demand. 3. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the appellant had made a specific prayer to this Tribunal for setting aside the penalty imposed by the original authority under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Obviously, the applicant entertained a doubt as to penalty despite the above favourable findings of the learned Commissioner ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X