TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant only in respect of the confirmation of demand of ₹ 96,000 approximately. It is an admitted fact that the part of the impugned order of the Original Adjudicating Authority dropping the demand was not challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), in which case there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to deal with or adjudge the correctness of that part of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R.K. Mishra, DR ORDER PER ARCHANA WADHWA: After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellants, who are engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products, were selling their goods to independent wholesale buyers as also to their related persons. Revenue by entertaining a view that the sales made to the related persons are required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old in the market by the appellants customers, he confirmed the demand. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order of the Original Adjudicating Authority, the appellant filed an appeal their against before the Commissioner (Appeals), challenging the confirmation of duty of ₹ 96,776/- and imposition of penalty of ₹ 20,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals), instead of passing orders on the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of the confirmation of demand of ₹ 96,000 approximately. It is an admitted fact that the part of the impugned order of the Original Adjudicating Authority dropping the demand was not challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), in which case there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to deal with or adjudge the correctness of that part of the order dropping the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
