TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrectness of the impugned order confirming duty and penalty against them as detailed therein. 2. The ld. Counsel has contended that at the relevant time the appellants were working under compounded levy scheme and the show cause notice dated 1-4-1998 was issued to them demanding differential duty for the period 1-9-1997 to March, 1998, under sub-rule (1) of Rule 96ZP and without adjudicating th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough S.C.N. dated 1-4-1998, but that SCN had not been adjudicated upon. The impugned order has been passed in pursuance to another notice dated 20-9-2001 wherein duty for the same period was demanded. When, the fact of non-adjudication of first show cause notice was brought to the notice of the Commissioner by the appellants, he disposed of the same by observing as under :- "As regards the plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturer cannot opt twice during one financial year, do not advance the case of the revenue as no such issue is involved in these proceedings. 3. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court). - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
