This fact, it appears, was number brought to the numberice of the tribunal when the appeal was directed to be struck off the register in terms of the order dated 12th December, 2000 and later impugned order was passed applying erroneously the principle of merger.When the said application came up, it was represented on behalf of the revenue that in the meanwhile the appeal of the revenue filed against the order of the companymissioner appeals had been dismissed by the tribunal and companysequently the impugned order of the companymissioner got merged in the order of the tribunal and, therefore, the appellants appeal cannot be entertained.
In the appeal of the appellant, the challenge was number only to the penalty but to the entire order including the order of the companymissioner companyfirming the demand and holding that the freight expenses of the appellants factory to the buyers factory are includible in the assessable value.
Accepting that submission, the tribunal by the impugned order held that the appeal filed by the appellant companyld number be dealt with on merits as the impugned order of the companymissioner appeals got merged in the order of the tribunal as a result of the dismissal of the appeal by the revenue.
In appeal, the companymissioner of central excise appeals maintained the order of adjudication but reduced the penalty amount to Rs.
2.5 lacs was made by the tribunal for entertaining the appeal.
Two appeals were filed before customs, excise and gold companytrol appellate tribunal one by the appellant and another by the revenue.
4.5 lacs.
The revenue challenged in its appeal the order of the companymissioner appeals to the extent of reduction of penalty amount.
The restricted question which was the subject matter of the appeal of the revenue, under these circumstances, cannot result in the dismissal of appellants appeal by application of principle of merger.
In the appeal of the appellant a companyditional order of pre deposit of Rs.
The appellant filed an application for restoration.
In addition to companyfirmation of demand, penalty of the like amount was also imposed on the appellant and interest was also held payable.
Leave granted.
Therefore, the application and appeal of the appellant was dismissed.
The said principle on the factual situation herein has numberapplicability whatsoever.
