2004 (1) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r for hearing. 2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents, although the notice for today's hearing was sent to them. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeals on merits after hearing the learned JDR. 3. In these appeals, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned orders vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has revers .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore, when the duty demand was subjudice, no adjustment of their pre-deposit amount to which they are entitled to, could be legally made in view of the ratio of the law laid down in the case of National Steels v. UOI, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 616; CCE v. Instrumentation Ltd., 2002 (140) E.L.T. 518; and CCE v. Indian Shaving Products Ltd., 2002 (144) E.L.T. 650. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X