2000 (9) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Revenue 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 cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he order passed by the adjudicating authority 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 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led by the Respondents. The order passed by the 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 th....