Tribunal sets aside duty and penalty order, finding multiple notices improper. Department's reliance deemed inapplicable.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order confirming duty and penalty under a compounded levy scheme. The Tribunal found that issuing multiple notices for the same period without adjudication was improper, especially after a significant lapse of time. The Department's reliance on an Apex Court judgment regarding a manufacturer's choice in a financial year was deemed inapplicable. Therefore, the impugned order was not upheld, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues Involved: Contesting duty and penalty confirmation under compounded levy scheme, legality of issuing multiple notices for the same period u/s Rule 96ZP, relevance of non-adjudicated show cause notice, applicability of Apex Court judgment on manufacturer's choice in a financial year.

In this appeal, the appellants challenged the correctness of the impugned order confirming duty and penalty against them under a compounded levy scheme. The appellants argued that a show cause notice demanding duty for a specific period was issued but not adjudicated upon, and another notice for the same period could not be legally issued and confirmed. The Department, however, supported the impugned order citing a judgment of the Apex Court regarding a manufacturer's choice in a financial year.

Upon review, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' contention. It was observed that the duty for the disputed period was raised under one sub-rule of Rule 96ZP, but the initial show cause notice had not been adjudicated upon. The subsequent notice for the same period was deemed inappropriate, especially after a significant lapse of time, and the Commissioner's response did not impact the necessity of adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the Apex Court's judgment on a manufacturer's choice did not apply to the current case.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the impugned order could not be upheld and was set aside. The appeal of the appellants was allowed with consequential relief as per the law. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court.

---