2003 (6) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmissions wherein it has been mentioned that the present impugned Order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in pursuance of Tribunal's Final Order No. A-560/2001-NB, dated 19-7-2001 [2002 (146) E.L.T. 311 (T)] under which the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals); that not gone into Appeal, thereby admitting the same; that in such circumstances impugned order itself cannot survive. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri R.C. Sharma, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the Appellants manufacture textile printing adhesive which is sold after packing in plastic jars and affixing paper labels bearing the brand name "ATR" owned by a foreign concern; that the Appellate Tribunal in the Appellants' own ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He has, further mentioned that it has been held by the Supreme Court in CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemicals Industries, 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) that Board's Circular is binding irrespective of the fact whether the same is right or wrong or contrary to Supreme Court's judgment; that the impugned order is contrary to Board's Circular No. 3/92-CX 6, dated 14-5-92 and 299/15/97-CX, dated 27-2-97 wherein it has been held that if a show cause notice contains allegation of wilful mis-statement, it has to be issued only by the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner and not by the Superintendent; that, further, the Deputy Commissioner cannot confirm a demand of Rs. 26.75 lakhs as the same is beyond the monetary limit prescribed in the Board Circula....