(1.) THESE appeals of the Revenue are directed against an order passed by the Commissioner in adjudication of show -cause notice dated 11 -8 -2008 issued to the Respondents. M/s. Parle International Ltd. [Yo Frooti Division, hereinafter referred to as PIL (YF)], were asked to pay (a) duty of Rs. 5,51,890/ - on finished goods found short -valued at Rs. 68,98,634/ -; (b) duty of Rs. /10,62,240/ - on raw materials found short -valued at Rs. 70,74,170/ -, and (c) Rs. 23,91,519/ - being the amount of MODVAT credit found to have been irregularly availed. M/s. Parle International Ltd. [Jolly Jelly Division, hereinafter referred to as PIL (JJ)], were asked to pay (a) duty of Rs. 5,64,617/ - on raw material found short, and (b) duty of Rs. 2,21,837/ - on finished goods and raw materials valued at Rs. 22,99,200/ - which had been seized and subsequently released provisionally to them against B -11 bond and bank guarantee. M/s. Parle Bottling Ltd. [Agro Division, hereinafter referred to as PBL (AD)], were directed to pay (a) duty of Rs. 14,738/ - on finished goods found short; (b) duty of Rs. 68,285/ - on raw material found short, and (c) duty of Rs. 20,42,019/ - on finished goods, raw material and packing material which had been seized and subsequently released provisionally against B -11 bond and bank guarantee. Interest on duty and penalties were also proposed to be levied from all the three parties. PIL (YF), Respondent in appeal No. E/1079/03, PBL (AD), Respondent in appeal No. E/1080/03 and PIL (JJ), Respondent in appeal No. E/1081/03 contested the how -cause notice through detailed replies. In adjudication of the disputes, the learned Commissioner passed the impugned order dropping the proceedings against the Respondents. Hence these appeals of the Revenue.
(2.) THE main ground raised against the Commissioner's order is that he did not pass a speaking order. The learned SDR has reiterated this and other grounds o the appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel also. On a perusal of the Commissioner's order, we note that the Appellant is perfectly justified in challenging the same on the ground that the adjudicating authority did not choose to state any reason for taking the decision against the Revenue. The operative part of the Commissioner's order is reproduced below: