TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." or 'left ever appeals". 1.2 The background of these appeals deserves to be dealt with at some length. 2.1 3 appeals, namely, E/2590-2592 of 2006 are arising out of a common order-in-appeal No. 251-277/2006, dated 31-3-3006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he decided 27 appeals. 2.2 As per the report submitted by the Registry out of 27 parties in the above orders-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), 8 parties have filed appeals before the Tribunal. Out of these, 5 appeals have already been disposed of by the Tribunal. Vide final Order No. 812/2006, appeal No. E/2184 of 2005 filed by M/s. Sagar Forged and Allied Industries stands dismissed for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 35F. By Final Order No. 1000-1018 of 2009 dated 4-5-2009, the appeals No. 2185, 2186 and 2187 stand allowed and the matter stand remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration. By Final Order No. 1027-1048 of 2009, dated 5-5-2009, the appeal No. E/2870 of 2006 stands allowed and the matter remanded to the original authority. 2.3 The appeal No. E/2590/06 is filed by one Shri Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, Director of M/s. Adhunik Steel Ltd., who is the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... report received from the Registry indicates that 28 appeals have been filed against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Out of this, by the final order of the Tribunal No. 467-469/08, 22 appeals stand disposed of by remanding the matter to the original authority. 2.6 37 appeals, namely E/2764-2767/06, E/2794-2804/06, E/2810-2825/06, E/2835/06, E/2919-2922/06, E/2942/06 and E/3009/06, are arising out of the common order-in-appeal No. 453-492/CE/CHD/2006 dated 30-5-2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has decided totally forty appeals. The report of the registry indicates that 38 appeals have been filed and appeal No. E/2679/06 in respect of Manu Bansal v. CCE, Chandigarh stands disposed of vide Final Order No. 467-469/08 dated 24-1-08 [2009 (233) E.L.T. 131 (Tribunal) - Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Commissioner]. The learned Advocate submits that 40 appeals are arising out of 11 different orders-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not linked other appeals, (filed before him) if any, arising out of said 11 orders-in-original. The Assistant Commissioner, Mandi Gobindgarh who is present and learned SDR are not able to readily furnish the details of appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were shown to have been routed through registered dealers. The investigation by the Officers indicated that in some cases registration numbers of vehicles mentioned in the documents for transportation were not even those of vehicles registered with the transport authorities; that in some cases the vehicle nos. given related to four wheelers, tractors and two wheelers. The show cause notices were issued specific to the recipient-manufacturer who availed the credit together with connected parties like TISCO, Consignment Agent, Registered dealer (wherever applicable) and the individual persons connected to the above parties. The original authority apart from confirming demand of duty from the recipient-manufacturer after denying the credit, imposed penalties of varying amounts on all these persons. 6. A perusal of various orders-of-original authority connected to these appeals indicate that there has been no specific discussion on the failure/violation of each party/person on whom penalty has been imposed, with reference to evidence relied upon, and the defence submissions of the concerned party/person. Manner of disposal by the Commissioner (Appeals) : 7.1 The ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 28 appeals have been filed against the common order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 333-372/CE/CHD/2006, registry has listed one of the appeals in 2006, one of the appeals in 2008 and 22 appeals in 2009. If some care was taken, all these appeals could have been listed together, for what is worth. It is hoped that, in future, the registry will take necessary precaution in listing all appeals arising out of common order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Commissioner as the case may be. This is easily possible in view of the software programme in place. 8.2.1 Today's listing of the appeals in the cause list also calls for comments. 44 appeals are listed as follows : 1 E/2301-2304/2000 TISCO & CCE, K.J. Singh Connected E/2590-2592/06 Others Chandigarh matters E/2764-2767, 2794-2804, 2810-2824, 2835/06, E/2010-2922, 2942, 3009/06 8.2.2 Each of the appeals, even if forming part of same group of appeals, should have been specifically listed indicating the appeal number, the name of the appellant and the name of the respondent and t....