2010 (10) TMI 874

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... applicable to deny right of appeal to revenue?" 3. By Consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the Appeal is taken up for final hearing. 4. Respondent-assessee is engaged in manufacturing excisable goods. On 7th April, 2004 the Preventive Officer of Head-Quarters visited respondent assessee's Unit and during the verification of record and the stock of goods, it was observed that the finished goods weighing 1467.540 Kg of LLDPE plain Stretch Cling Film was found in full packed condition and goods were ready for dispatch. All these goods were valued at Rs. 1,03,206/- (Rupees One Lac Three Thousand Two Hundred and Six), involving duty of Rs. 16,513/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirteen) and goods were duly pac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 1,32,42 7/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Seven) under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 11(A)(C) of the Central Excise Act, along with interest under Section 11AB. 8. The respondent-assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 7-11-2006 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by First Adjudicating Authority. 9. The Appellant submits that Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the Appeal filed by the respondent - assessee, is challenged before CESTAT by the Revenue. The said Appeal bearing No. E-132/2007 is still pending. 10. In the meanwhile, the Revenue preferred an Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not commit any illegality and therefore, substantial question of law does not arise in this Appeal. According to learned counsel Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 15. We have perused the relevant orders placed before us, and the Judgment cited supra. We have considered the submissions advanced by the Counsel for respective parties. 16. In the facts of the case, we find that principle underlying doctrine of merger can not be made applicable. The Revenue was aggrieved by part of the Order, which was detrimental to their interest. 17. The Revenue was entitled to file an independent proceeding in the shape of Appeal before the appropriate Authorities and Tribunal. Accordingly, the Revenue preferred Appeal to the Commissio....