2014 (8) TMI 467

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....before the Tribunal as the appeals were filed against the communication of arrears of Revenue. 3. After hearing both sides at length, I find that the appeals may be decided at the stage of stay petition hearing. After disposing the stay application, both the appeals are taken up for disposal. 4. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Mercerized Cotton Yarn. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty for the period 1.4.2003 to 1.11.2003 and imposed penalty on the company as well as on the Director of the applicant-company, appellant No.1 and 2 herein, and the matter went upto the Tribunal. By Final Order No.953, 954/2008 dt. 5.9.2008, the Tribunal set aside the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he only option available. Hence these appeals are returned as they do not call for any action and the matter may be treated as closed. This issues with the approval of the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore." 7. The main contention of the learned Authorized Representative on behalf of the Revenue is that the Tribunal by Final order dt. 5.9.2008 had set aside the denial of input duty credit and upheld the penalty. It is submitted that the Range Superintendent requested them to pay the penalty as per Tribunal's order. It is submitted that no appeal would lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) against a mere communication for payment of penalty. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant against the communication for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- 2007 (215) ELT 313 (Tri.-Chennai). He submits that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Govindbhai Patel (supra) as relied upon by the Ld. A.R would not be applicable in this case as in that case, the appeal was filed against the letter of the Superintendent intimating the date of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority and refusal to grant cross-examination. He further submitted that the decision in the case of Parmarth Steel & Alloys Ltd. (supra) as relied upon by the Ld. A.R is related to a letter from Additional Commissioner communicating to the assessee that the Chief Commissioner had extended the period of attachment of their property which is a merely a communication. 9. After hearing both sides and on p....