2010 (3) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 3. The factual matrix reveals that the show cause notice was issued against the Respondent-Assessee which was confirmed by an order-in-original 13-3-2003. The said order-in-original was subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 30-6-2003 applied the provisions of Section 11(AC) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 considering the facts and circumstances of the case and went on to reduce penalty under Section 11(AC). The said order was subject matter of challenge, not at the instance of the Respondent-Assessee but at the instance of the Appellant/Revenue, before the Tribunal. In other words, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was accepted by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....498 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has ruled that if the specific finding of fact is not challenged in the grounds of appeal then the submissions contrary to those findings cannot be entertained by the appellate Court. 6. The learned counsel for the Revenue, relying on the judgment in case of Dharamendra Textiles (supra), submits that the question of law framed above is required to be answered in favour of the Revenue since the adverse findings recorded against the Respondent by the first Appellate Authority has become final and conclusive. 7. Per contra, Mr. Baya, the learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the show cause notice itself is bad in law and illegal. He further relied on the findings recorded by the Tribunal that t....