2005 (4) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This appeal of the Revenue is against the two orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. Order-in-Appeal No. 4/2004 dt. 9-1-2004 and OIA of even number dt. 26-2-2004. The department cannot challenge both the orders in one appeal. They ought to have filed separate appeals against the two Orders-in-Appeal. The present appeal is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty and the proposal for penalty were contested. The Jt. Commissioner, who adjudicated the dispute, adjusted earlier excess payments of duty towards the subject demand of differential duty and imposed on the assessee a penalty of Rs. 6,198/- (equivalent to the duty so adjusted) under Rule 96ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He imposed separate penalty of Rs. 1000/- on them under Rule 173....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontained in the following part of the impugned order :- "When the ACP was determined only on 16-11-2000 and differential duty payable was already adjusted suo-moto in the impugned order, the question of imposition of penalty equal to the differential duty does not arise." 4.It is an admitted fact that the ACP originally determined by the Commissioner was revised w.e.f. 5-10-98 as per order d....