2019 (9) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Manish Garg, Adv. For The Respondent : Shri Vivek Pandey, DR ORDER Per Bijay Kumar 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order vide which the demand of Rs. 5,37,30,943/- along with penalty and interest as per the adjudication order is confirmed. 2. Ld. Advocate, on behalf of the appellant, submits that the issue is squarely covered by the various decision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en at Delhi, vide the Centralised Registration No. AABCD0971FXM001, there is no jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excuse, Jaipur, to issue such demand and adjudicated the same. Accordingly, the demand used is vide ab initio, and therefore, impugned adjudication order is also not sustainable. 3. Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue says that on the merits they have disagreement with the deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ove he supports the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner, Jaipur to be sustainable. 4. We have considered the submission made by Ld. Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Ld. DR, on behalf of the Revenue, along with various documents including with appeal memorandum. 5. First we would like to decide the Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central, Jaipur, to issue the demand in this ca....