TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (9) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal dated 20-10-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Valves and Cocks and they supplied these Valves and Cocks to M/s. Mazagaon Docks Ltd., M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engg. Ltd. and M/s. Goa Shipyards and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondents took a preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the respondents filed an appeal against the adjudication order whereby the demand was confirmed and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, therefore, the order passed by the adjudicating authority was merged in the Appellate order. The order passed by the Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty is merged with the Appellate order is not correct as two proceedings were started against the adjudication order. 5. On merit learned JDR submits that now the issue is covered by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1999 (114) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal). He, therefore, prays that the application be allowed. 6. Heard both si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adjudicating authority whereby the demand was dropped was separately challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) which is the subject-matter of the present appeal. Therefore, we find no merit in the objection raised by the Respondents. 8. In this case the respondent is not disputing the fact that Valves and Cocks manufactured by them were supplied to various Ship Builders. The Not....