2015 (10) TMI 2534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd R.S. Sharma, Advocate (Proxy), for the Appellant. Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : R.K. Singh, Member (T)]. - The Miscellaneous Application has been filed for restoration of appeal in the wake of CESTAT Final Order No. 50202/2015, dated 20-1-2015 in terms of which the appeal was dismissed summarily with the observation that "as the appeal is old one and no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f non-appearance of the appellant, the CESTAT should decide the appeal on merits, we recall the CESTAT order dated 20-1-2015 and with the consent of both parties, we proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The appellant has contended that the impugned Order-in-Revision was passed under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 on 24-4-2009, the date on which the appellant's appeal against the primary a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f penalty, which was not a subject matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore the impugned Order-in-Revision is sustainable. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that imposition of penalty is related to the sustainability of the demand and therefore is not unlinked to the impugned demand. Further, under the then Section 84....