ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts. Two show cause notices were issued to the appellants on 17-10-95 and 13-2-96, Both show cause notices were adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority and demand was dropped and penalty was imposed vide order dated 1-3-2000.
3. Appellants also received another Adjudication Order dated 29-11-99 whereby demand in respect of show cause notice dated 13-2-96 was confirmed. Appellants filed appeal against this Adjudication order which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The contention of the appellants is that when the demand was dropped by the Adjudicating Authority; therefore, the other Adjudicating Authority cannot confirm the demand.
6. Revenue is not disputing the fact of issuance of two show cause notices. Both were adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 1-3-2000 and the demand was dropped.
7. In respect to the show cause notice dated 13-2-96 the other Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand. From the record, we find that the Adjudicating Authority gave personal hearing on 29-12-98 and the Adjudication order was passed on 29-11-99. During this period, the matter was taken up by the other Adjudicating Authority and vide order dated 1-3-2000 the demand was dropped in spite of the first order. Revenue has not filed any appeal against the dropping of the demand before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, this issue has come final in respect of demand against show cause notice dated 13-2-96. In the absence of appeal against this Adjudication Order, the present impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable for the reason given in the order that the first order will sustain. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.