enclosed a copy of the said agreement dated 11.03.2009 with the said reply and contended that both the transactions are independent of each other and discount offered by the appellant was trade discount and in lieu of use of land of Navi Mumbai Municipal Transport, appellant was paying monthly lease rent and, therefore, demand is not sustainable. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through order-in-original dated 22.07.2014. Learned original authority has not taken into consideration the said sublease agreement dated 11.03.2009 and taken into consideration only the agreement dated 20.01.2009 and confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). For subsequent period from July 2013 to March 2014, similarly worded show cause notice dated 11.06.2014 was issued to the appellant demanding central excise duty of Rs.69,602/- from the appellant on the same grounds. The said show cause notice dated 11.06.2014 was contested by the appellant on the same grounds similar to earlier show cause notice and the said show cause notice dated 11.06.2014 was decided by original authority through another order dated 22.07.2014 through which demand of central excise duty of Rs.69,602/- was confirmed with imposition of penalty of Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Both the appeals were decided through a common order-in-appeal dated 12.08.2015 by learned Commissioner (Appeals) who did not interfere through his impugned order with the original orders passed, both dated 22.07.2014. Aggrieved by the said order-in-appeal, appellant is before this Tribunal.
