2003 (8) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri S.M. Tata, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4-2-93 in an appeal filed by the Department against Order-in-Original No. 3/98, dated 31-3-98. Mainly two contentions are raised by the appellant. It is submitted that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....other Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in CCE, Bhubaneswar v. Oripol Industries - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 278. 2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala falling under Tariff Heading 2106 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Under a show cause notice dated 12-1-98 for the period 1-4-94 to 14-11-95 the Department proposed to disallow certain deduction. Proposals were uphe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he impugned order is non est in the eye of law as Order-in-Original No. 3/98, dated 31-3-98 had already merged in the Final Order dated 26-7-2000 passed by this Tribunal. Learned Departmental Representative tried to contend relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mauria Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-II - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.) that since the issue considered by this Tribunal in Final Order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was finally decided. Thereafter it is not open to the Revenue to file an appeal from the Order-in-Original in respect of a different item of deduction claimed by the assessee which would affect the quantum of duty due from it. We, therefore, hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in the light of the Final Order passed by this Tribunal dated 26-7-2000. ....