TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudication order (non-existence) and passing of the impugned order are against the principle of doctrine of merger and the same cannot be sustained against the appellant - reliance placed in the case of UNION OF INDIA Versus INANI CARRIERS [2008 (11) TMI 79 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], where it was held that since order in appeal has been passed against impugned original order, penalty enhanced in revision order is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/1908/2010-SM - A/55020/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 30-6-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Sameer Agarwal, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. G.R. Singh, D.R. Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which was disposed of vide order dated 22.08.2008 in favour of the appellant, in setting aside the entire penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rs.3,00,000 + ₹ 2,00,000/-) imposed in the adjudication order. Subsequently, the order of adjudication dated 27.09.2007 was reviewed by the Department under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 and impugned order dated 24.09.2009 was passed by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur in disallowing cenvat credit of ₹ 22,83,201/- against the appellant. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the adjudication order dated 27.09.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise had merged with the Order-in-App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch judgment of the Tribunal, Delhi, in CCE V. L.M.L. Ltd. (Scooter Division) 2002 (143) ELT 431 , wherein again the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner imposing penalty while not confirming the demand of duty, which appeal was allowed, holding that when there is no duty demand, there could be no penalty. However, the revenue pursuant to order in review passed by the Commissioner, in exercise of its power under Section 35 (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed appeal before the Tribunal against the same order, and much after the decision of the Tribunal, the Board itself sought to review on the appeal filed by the assessee, and in those facts it was held, that the order impugned has already bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
