TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ries Limited (appellant No. 1) and appeal No. E/122 of 2011 has been filed by Shri Ajay F. Garg, Managing Director of appellant No.1, against the imposition of penalty of Rs. One lakh by the lower appellate authority. Appeal No. E/300 of 2011 has been filed by Revenue (Appellant No.3) on the ground that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly extended the benefit of payment of 25% of penalty as the duty, interest and penalty was not deposited within 30 days from the date of communication of adjudication order. 2. Brief facts of the case are contained in Para 1 to 3.4 of order in appeal dated 19.10.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals), in his final discussion has held that duty of excise can be demanded on 412.890 MT of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 2,35,842/- with reference to 412.890MT of brass ash confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) is totally unsustainable as there was no such proposal in the show cause notice for the demand of duty on alleged clearance of brass ash as manufactured goods and Commissioner (Appeals) brought in an altogether new issue to confirm the demand which is totally beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The following case laws were cited in support of his contention:- (a) Industan Polymers Company Limited vs. CCE, Guntur [1999 (106) ELT 12 (SC)] (b) Bhor Industries Lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit was rightly taken by the appellant on the tin ingots? (c) Whether option of 25% of reduced penalty can be given by the appellate authority when no such option was given by the original adjudicating authority? 7. So far as the point mentioned at Para 6(a) is concerned, appellant has argued that the subject matter of show cause notice was denial of cenvat credit but duty was confirmed in the order in appeal as duty demand on clandestinely removed Brass ash, as if manufactured by the appellant. It is observed from Para 16(1) of the show cause notice dated 15.2.2008 that the proceedings were initiated to deny cenvat credit. However, the first appellate authority, in Para 4.2.4 of order in appeal dated 19.10.2010 confirmed the demand of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....produce para 6 : While we appreciate the Tribunals desire to do complete justice and mould the relief in that direction, we think that, in the circumstances, the Tribunal should not, in this case, have passed an order which proceeded upon a basis that is altogether different from that of the demand made upon the appellants. That is not moulding relief. The demand that was made upon the appellants was under Tariff Item 68 and it proceeded upon the basis that there was a process of manufacture of coloured polystyrene from C uncoloured polystyrene. Having come to a conclusion against the Revenue on these counts, the appropriate order for the Tribunal to have passed was to have set aside the demand and left it open to the Revenue to proceed a....