2013 (10) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3, which was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal dated 27.11.2003. 3. Shri Amit Laddha, ld.Adv. appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that this appeal has become infructuous in view of the Order No.A/1268-1269/WZB/AHD/2012, dt.25.07.2012 passed by Ahmedbad Bench in Appeal No.E/616/2011 and E/CO/98/2011 with respect to the same appellant filed by the Revenue. 4. Shri S.K. Mall, (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue contested that in view of Order dt.25.07.2012, already passed by this Bench where the appeal of the Revenue was allowed, this appeal should also be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 6. It is seen from the facts narrated in Order dt.25.07.2012 passed by the Ahme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the order in original passed by Commissioner as mentioned in brief facts in Para 1 (vi) of the case, which has considered the liability of Central Excise duty and the liability of Customs duty on M/s. L & T Limited for the goods manufactured has to be considered as the one which has vacated the protest even though it does not specifically say so. Even though, Hyundai was not a party to one of the show cause notices, they were indeed a party for the other show cause notice and in that case, they did not utilize the opportunity to defend the case and establish the liability of M/s. L & T Limited of Customs duty and the claim for exemption of custom duty before the Commissioner. Even though M/s. L & T Limited had filed the protest apparently o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that goods attract Customs duty and not Central Excise duty and has also decided the classification as claimed by the respondents both of which are contrary to the decision of the executive Commissioner in his order dated 24.9.2003 which has attained finality in the absence of any challenge before the appellate fora. The net result is that Commissioners (Appeals) decision becomes un-implementable since the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner who passed the order had passed the order within his jurisdiction and that order remains unchallenged. In fact, the refund claim should have been and could have been filed only after the issue of classification and liability to ....