2002 (1) TMI 565

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Order-in-Appeal No. 23 to 25C.E./LKO/2000, dated 27-3-2000; that while discussing the facts of the subject cases only case involving duty amounting to Rs. 2,95,860/- was taken into account and penalty had been reduced to Rs. 50,000/-; that the Hon'ble Tribunal has neither discussed the other remaining cases involving duty amounting to Rs. 12,20,951/- and Rs. 7,59,817/- and penalty of equal amount nor has passed any order in respect of penalty imposed in these orders. 2. Arguing the case for the Commissioner, Central Excise, Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned DR submits that a reading of paras 1, 2 and 3 shows clearly that the Tribunal had before it only that case in which the demand of duty of Rs. 2,95,860/- was considered. He refers to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;We have heard both the sides. On careful consideration of the submissions made we note that in terms of para 1 all the three appeals arising out of the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 23 to 25-C.E./LKO/2000, dated 27-3-2000 were considered. However in the first para only one Order-in-Original is mentioned and the remaining two Orders-in-Original which were disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) by one order were not mentioned. This is a mistake apparent on the face of the records. Para 1 of the impugned order is, therefore, modified to read as, "By the captioned appeals the Revenue had prayed for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 23 to 25-C.E./LKO/2000, dated 27-3-2000 and in restoring the Order-in-Original No. 117/99/Demand/ Modvat/29/99, ....