2006 (4) TMI 432

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 Appellant. Shri S.S. Bhagat, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)].- After hearing both sides, we find that the original adjudication proceedings were in favour of the appellants. On appeal filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order of the original adjudicating authority. As such, subsequently the duty has not yet bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld be as 9.321 as against the nine chambers fixed by the Commissioner in his provisional order. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellants by way of issuance of Show cause notice dated 28-6-99 proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 2,65,601/- for the period 16-12-1998 to May 99. Another show cause notice was issued on 1-10-99 for the period March 99 to August 99 proposing duty on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty and in spite of the fact that galleries length is not required to be taken into consideration, the appellants are liable to discharge their duty liability in accordance with the final Annual Production Capacity order. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the first show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 28-6-1999 when the final order was not in existence. The appellant wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Reference has been made to a recent decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay passed on 18-3-2006. Under similar circumstances. High Court observed that though the correctness of the final order fixing the APC was not challenged by the assessee, the proceedings and show cause notice for short levy were independent and substantive proceedings, which were challenged by the assessee and should h....