9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. "Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.01.2005 in Order-in[1]Appeal No.3/2005 (H-IV) CE." 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal in nutshell are that the appellant is a manufacturer of three wheeler auto rickshaws for passengers and load carriers falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 8703.00 and 8704.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act'), respectively. The respondent received information that the appellant is man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 27.11.1996 was issued to the appellant. The appellant by the aforesaid notice was asked to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 6,70,721/- be not recovered from it. 5. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 28.10.1997 confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,70,721/- and adjusted the amount of Rs. 6,69,998/- paid by the appellant towards the said demand and ordered for recovery of balance amount of Rs. 723/- apart from imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/- as well as penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 6. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 28.10.1997 in the appeal. However, during pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed an application dated 05.11.1998 under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') claiming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal does not call for any interference and the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 11. From the material available on record, it is evident that during pendency of the appeal against the order passed in original proceeding, the appellant with its eyes wide open had applied under the Scheme. Thereafter, the appellant paid the amount due under the Scheme and produced the certificate of payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant on the ground that appellant is not entitled to challenge the order dated 28.10.1997. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
