2009 (8) TMI 869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontract for supply of M.S. Pipes on FOR delivery at site basis which were situated at various sites including the place in the State of Gujarat. It is the case of the respondent that on scrutiny of purchase orders as well as relevant sale invoices issued by the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant had availed some non-admissible deductions from the contracted price for arriving at lower assessable value. The objectionable deductions were in relation to transportation expenditure as well as Gujarat Entry tax. The department therefore, issued show cause notice dated 3-8-2001 and adjudicating authority by order dated 22-12-2003 while confirming certain demand, dropped the demand to the tune of Rs. 8,60,665/-. Aggrieved by the said orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Apex Court in the case of Mauria Udyog Limited v. CCE, Delhi-II reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.). 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant also canvassed various other grounds to challenge the impugned order. However, it is not necessary to address to all those grounds in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Plain reading of the impugned order reveals that the lower appellate authority without even application of mind to the issues involved in the matter has disposed of the appeal on wrong assumption that disposal of another appeal which was filed by the appellant, which was undisputedly on the issue different from the issue involved in the matter in hand before the Commissioner (Appeals), by applying the princip....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not be entertained. Accepting that submission, the Tribunal by the impugned order held that the appeal filed by the appellant could not be dealt with on merits as the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) got merged in the order of the Tribunal as a result of the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue. Therefore, the application and appeal of the appellant was dismissed. 4. It is evident from the facts noticed above that the principle of merger has not applicability. The appeal of the Revenue was restricted to the reduction of the penalty amount by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the appeal of the appellant, the challenge was not only to the penalty but to the entire order including the order of the Commissioner confirming the....