TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant’s own case INDIAN ADDITIVES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (8) TMI 1576 - CESTAT CHENNAI] has held that Since the issue being an interpretational one and the appellants having litigated the same upto the Hon’ble High Court, penalty not sustainable and is set aside. . As could be seen from the records, the Order-in-Original was passed on 26.07.2006 and the Order-in-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant Shri. R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The assessee has filed these appeals against the Orders of the Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai, who, vide the impugned Orders dated 09.10.2017 and 05.10.2017 has upheld the demand, interest and penalty and thereby the Orders-in-Original, passed by the adjudicating authority. 2. When ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai, who, vide the impugned Order upheld the findings of the Original Authority. 3.2 Ld. Advocate fairly submitted that for the earlier year, the matter had travelled up to the High Court and the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court vide Order in C.M.A. Nos. 1122-1125/2017 dated 23.01.2018 had ruled against the assessee; that in view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been laid to rest. 5. I have heard both sides and considered the rival contentions, perused the records and have also gone through the judgment/Order of this Bench for the earlier period in the appellant s own case in Final Order No. 41779-41780/2018 dated 11.06.2018. Though I find that the contentions of the Ld. DR are well-founded, but as could be seen from the records, the Order-in-Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
