9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hasija, Supdt. (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The brief facts of these cases are that in the application for abatement dated 19-4-2000, the Jurisdictional Commissioner vide Order No. 15/CEX/07, dated 8-5-2007 passed following order : (a) I hereby confirm the duty amount of Rs. 11,69,175/- under Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, on M/s. Mahammadi Steel Mills Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 96ZP(3) imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 96ZP(3) demanded interest under Rule 96ZP(3). However no order was passed as regard the abatement claim by them in their application though it was discussed in the findings for this reason order passed in respect of abatement of the duty is not sustainable and same deserve to be set aside. He alternately submits that in any case penalty and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Triveni Alloys Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai [2014 (306) E.L.T. 617 (Mad.)]. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. I find that abatement application was filed on 19-4-2000 whereas demands under show cause notices were adjudicated on 30-9-2003 without passing any order on the abatement application, therefore demand was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation by the Commissioner. 5.2 As regard the Appeal No. E/1070/07, impugned order is set aside, matter is remanded to the Commissioner to pass afresh order on the abatement application. Needless to say, both the authorities should consider the judgments cited by the rivals, while passing de novo adjudication order. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand to the respective original adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
