2009 (10) TMI 726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mounting to Rs. 5,50,000/- and Rs. 4,02,689/- for the months of March 99 and May 99, proceedings were initiated and the Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 9,52,689/- and also imposed an equal amount as penalty. On appeal filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 5,77,698/- and also imposed an equal amount of penalty. 2. On an appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, this Tribunal vide Order No. 737-739/WZB/2003 dated 9-4-2003 allowed the appeal on the ground relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers v. Union of India reported in [2004 (163) E.L.T. 28 (Mad.)=2002 (52) RLT 644] wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that Hot Air Sten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for passing fresh orders in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 5. It was submitted by Shri Willingdon Christian, learned advocate, on behalf of the respondents that with the order passed by the Tribunal on 9-4-2003, there is no order of Commissioner (Appeals) left to adjudicate upon. Since Revenue has not filed an appeal against the decision dated 9-4-2003, that order has attained finality. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot once again go into the correctness of the penalty on the basis of remand order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. If the arguments advanced ....