|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 480 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 205
Issues:
1. Modvat credit eligibility for specific equipment.
2. Validity of taking Modvat credit based on original invoices.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Modvat credit eligibility for specific equipment:
The Revenue appealed against an Order-in-Appeal allowing the appellant's appeal, primarily disputing the Modvat credit availed for Stock Pump, Consistency level Box, and Oscillating Shower Arrangement. The Revenue contended that these items did not bring about intrinsic changes in the raw material, thus falling outside the capital goods definition under Rule 57Q. The Revenue argued that Stock Pumps, Consistency level Box, and Oscillating Shower Arrangement were not capital goods as they did not alter the pulp significantly in the manufacturing process. However, the Consultant for the Respondents argued that these items were integral to a complete paper board making plant, essential for the manufacturing process. The Consultant cited various case laws and emphasized that these items played crucial roles in ensuring the smooth operation of the plant, aligning with the expanded scope of capital goods as per the landmark judgment in Rajasthan State Chemical Works. The Tribunal, considering the arguments and precedents, concluded that the disputed items qualified as capital goods eligible for Modvat credit as they were vital for the efficient production of paper board.
Issue 2: Validity of taking Modvat credit based on original invoices:
The second point of dispute revolved around the validity of taking Modvat credit based on original invoices. The Revenue contended that credit should not be allowed based on original invoices, citing a specific case law. However, the Consultant argued that in this case, the credit was taken based on a duplicate invoice due to circumstances beyond control. The Consultant referenced relevant case laws and a notification supporting the allowance of credit based on original invoices. The Tribunal examined the arguments and case laws presented. It noted a precedent where credit based on original invoices was upheld due to no dispute on goods receipt or utilization, supported by a relevant notification. The Tribunal distinguished the case law cited by the Revenue, as it pertained to a different scenario. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal's decision to allow credit based on original invoices, finding no fault in the approach taken.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Order-in-Appeal's decisions on both issues. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the essential role of equipment in the manufacturing process and the validity of taking credit based on original invoices in specific circumstances, aligning with relevant case laws and notifications.
-
1998 (11) TMI 204
Issues:
- Eligibility of Load Cells for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q
- Eligibility of Capacitors for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q
Eligibility of Load Cells for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q:
The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original regarding duty demand of Rs. 7,890 for Load Cells and Capacitors. The appellant argued that Load Cells are integral parts of Weighing Scales, considered capital goods eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the appellant contended that parts of capital goods are also eligible for Modvat credit. The appellant emphasized that Load Cells should be eligible based on established precedents. The respondent, however, referred to a previous case where measuring instruments were not considered eligible for Modvat credit as capital goods. The appellant distinguished this case by highlighting the evolution of Modvat schemes and the direct connection of Load Cells to manufacturing equipment. The Tribunal examined past decisions and concluded that Load Cells, being integral to Weighing Scales, qualify for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q.
Eligibility of Capacitors for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q:
Regarding Capacitors, the appellant argued that they are essential components affixed to electric motors, which are capital goods directly linked to manufacturing equipment. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision involving static convertors to support the eligibility of capacitors for Modvat credit. The appellant contended that capacitors, regulating the speed of electric motors, play a crucial role in manufacturing processes. The Tribunal acknowledged the function of capacitors in maintaining the proper functioning of electric motors and noted the similarity to the static convertors case. Drawing parallels, the Tribunal held that capacitors, being vital components for electric motors in manufacturing activities, are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the requested relief.
-
1998 (11) TMI 203
The appeal by M/s. Swarup Fibres Industries Ltd. regarding the classification of Vulcanised Fibre was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal upheld the classification under sub-heading 3920.31 based on the HSN, ruling that Vulcanised Fibre is considered under 'plastics' and falls under this sub-heading.
-
1998 (11) TMI 202
The appeal was filed regarding the correct classification of seals imported for hydraulic cylinders. The issue was whether the seals should be classified under Heading No. 8412.90 as parts of hydraulic power engines or under Heading No. 3926.90 as articles of plastics. The appellants argued for classification under Chapter Heading No. 84, supported by a CBEC Circular. The authorities confirmed that the seals were used in hydraulic cylinders. Referring to the Circular, the Tribunal held that the seals fell under Heading No. 8412.90 as parts of hydraulic cylinders, overturning the previous classification and allowing the appeal.
-
1998 (11) TMI 201
Issues: Classification of Sound Blaster Cards, Video Blaster Cards, and T.V. Coder
Classification under Sub-heading 8473.30 vs. Sub-headings 8519.99 and 8521.90:
The appeal raised the issue of whether Sound Blaster Cards, Video Blaster Cards, and T.V. Coder should be classified under sub-heading 8473.30 as per the Commissioner (Appeals) or under sub-headings 8519.99 and 8521.90 as classified by the adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original. The appellant argued that the imported goods are complete units requiring connection to co-devices like computers to send digital signals, thus should be classified based on their function. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the imported equipments cannot function without being incorporated into the computer, and the classification was decided to fall under sub-heading 8473.30 after a conference and direction from the Commissioner of Customs.
Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both parties and considered the relevant tariff headings. Sub-heading 8473.30 pertains to parts and accessories of automatic data processing machines, while Heading 85.19 covers sound reproducing apparatus and Heading 85.21 covers video recording or reproducing apparatus. The Commissioner (Appeals) found merit in the importer's argument that the goods imported could function only as accessories to the computer. It was noted that sound cards lacked a sound head and video cards did not fall under Heading 85.21, which covers items reproducing sound and images on TV only. The TV coder was identified as a mounted PCB different from video recording or reproducing apparatus. Importantly, the Department itself subsequently classified the imported items under Heading 8473.30. As the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were not rebutted by the Revenue and considering the Department's reclassification, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant tariff headings, and the rationale behind the Tribunal's decision to uphold the classification under sub-heading 8473.30.
-
1998 (11) TMI 200
The appeal arose from Order-in-Appeal No. 313/90, dated 28-2-1990, where the delay in filing the appeal was rejected. The appellant sought clarification from the department on another item pending in the refund claim. The delay of 20 days was condoned as it was not due to negligence. The matter was remanded to the Asst. Commissioner for adjudication of the entire claim pertaining to two items. The appeal was allowed by remand to the Asst. Commissioner.
-
1998 (11) TMI 199
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed 5 appeals related to the eligibility of rejected final products as inputs for Modvat credit. The Tribunal held that the description of inputs should be broadly interpreted, and differences in terms like 'resin' and 'plastics' are not fatal to eligibility. The Commissioner's denial of Modvat credit was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 198
Issues: Classification under Notification 46/83 vs. Notification 47/83, Suppression of facts, Imposition of penalty
Classification under Notification 46/83 vs. Notification 47/83:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of packing and wrapping paper manufactured by the appellants under Notification 46/83 and Notification 47/83. The appellants claimed exemption under Notification 46/83, which covers all papers except certain excluded varieties, while the department argued that Notification 47/83, specifically for kraft paper, should apply. The Additional Collector upheld the duty demand under Notification 47/83, citing suppression of fact and imposed a penalty. The Tribunal analyzed the issue and concluded that since Notification 47/83 specifically covered kraft paper, the goods in dispute fell under this notification. However, the appellants successfully argued that the demand was time-barred as there was no suppression on their part. The Tribunal set aside the demand and penalty, allowing the appeal.
Suppression of Facts:
The department alleged that the appellants suppressed facts by not describing the goods as kraft paper in order to wrongly avail of the lower duty rate under Notification 46/83. The department applied the extended period of limitation based on this suppression. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants did not suppress any facts as they claimed the benefit of the notification they believed was applicable. The Tribunal emphasized that the department should ensure the correct application of notifications when approving classification lists, and mere claim under a different notification does not constitute suppression. As a result, the Tribunal held that there was no suppression to justify the extended period of limitation.
Imposition of Penalty:
The Adjudicating authority imposed a penalty even though there was no proposal for it in the show cause notice. The appellants argued against the penalty, stating that its imposition was unjustified. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that in the absence of a proposal for a penalty in the show cause notice, imposing a penalty was unwarranted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty along with the demand, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.
-
1998 (11) TMI 197
The appeal involved misdeclaration of goods' value under Customs Act, 1962. Goods' value enhanced from Rs. 66,233 to Rs. 6,64,530. Confiscation and redemption fine imposed. Personal penalty of Rs. 3 lacs for misdeclaration. Appellants imported glass chattons misdeclared as HK $ 4.00 per 10 gross, actual value HK $ 3.50 per gross. Evidence showed mistake by supplier, not considered by Commissioner. Order set aside, case remanded for fresh consideration.
-
1998 (11) TMI 196
Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 11/97-Cus regarding the eligibility for exemption of imported goods.
Analysis:
1. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved 12 appeals concerning the interpretation of Notification No. 11/97-Cus, dated 1-3-1997. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had denied the appellants the benefit of the Notification, leading to the appeals.
2. The appellants sought clearance of "Pre-Painted Aluminium Zinc Alloy Coated Sheets in Coil" under various Bills of Entry. Initially, the goods were allowed clearance under the Notification. However, the Department later claimed the goods were not eligible for exemption, resulting in demands for additional charges. The authorities upheld this decision.
3. The Collector (Appeals) ruled that since the appellants had imported "Cold Rolled Coils" which were further worked, they were not covered by the exemption. The Commissioner emphasized that no additional information should be considered while interpreting a notification, citing a Tribunal decision in Vikrant Tyres v. Commissioner of Central Excise.
4. The appellants argued that the absence of qualifying words against S. No. 105 of the Notification indicated no intention to restrict the exemption to Cold Rolled Coils that were not further worked. They referenced legal precedents and other notifications to support their interpretation.
5. The Respondent Collector reiterated that the goods in question had been further worked, making them ineligible for the exemption under S. No. 105 of the Notification, which specifically covered "Cold Rolled Coils" without further processing.
6. The Tribunal examined the entries under S. No. 105 and S. No. 114, noting the absence of qualifying words against S. No. 105. They agreed with the appellants' argument that if the legislature intended to restrict the exemption to unprocessed Cold Rolled Coils, they would have included qualifying words as seen in other entries.
7. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all 12 appeals, overturning the impugned orders and providing relief to the appellants. The Bank Guarantee executed by the appellants was to be discharged in light of the decision.
-
1998 (11) TMI 195
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 23/55.
2. Classification and distinction between Barytes and Precipitated Barium Sulphate (Blanc Fixe).
3. Justification for confiscation, penalty, and fine.
4. Allegations of suppression or misdeclaration.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 23/55:
The primary issue was whether Precipitated Barium Sulphate (Blanc Fixe) is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 23/55, which covers Barytes. The appellants argued that Blanc Fixe, being chemically identical to Barytes, should be covered under the same exemption. They cited various judgments and technical literature to support their claim that Blanc Fixe is a form of Barytes and should thus be exempted.
2. Classification and Distinction between Barytes and Precipitated Barium Sulphate (Blanc Fixe):
The appellants contended that Blanc Fixe is essentially Precipitated Barium Sulphate, which is chemically the same as naturally occurring Barytes. They provided ISI specifications and technical literature to demonstrate that both substances have the same chemical formula (BaSO4) and similar uses, particularly as extenders in paints. The Tribunal reviewed technical documents, including the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology and Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, which confirmed that Blanc Fixe and Barytes are chemically identical, with the only difference being that one is naturally occurring and the other is precipitated.
3. Justification for Confiscation, Penalty, and Fine:
The Collector had ordered the confiscation of 9,300 kgs of Blanc Fixe and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for contravention of Rules 174 and 173G(4). The Tribunal found that the Collector did not properly consider the technical literature and Board's circulars provided by the appellants, which clarified that Blanc Fixe should be treated as Barytes. The Tribunal concluded that there was no misdeclaration or suppression of facts by the appellants, and thus, the imposition of penalty and fine was unjustified.
4. Allegations of Suppression or Misdeclaration:
The department alleged that the appellants had suppressed the fact that their product was not naturally occurring Barytes but Precipitated Barium Sulphate, thereby wrongly claiming exemption. The Tribunal found that the appellants had accurately described their product in their declaration and had provided sufficient evidence to show that Blanc Fixe is covered under the exemption notification. The Tribunal noted that merely claiming an exemption does not constitute an offense, and there was no evidence of any suppression or misstatement of facts by the appellants.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal. It held that Blanc Fixe is covered under the exemption notification for Barytes, and there was no justification for the confiscation, penalty, or fine imposed by the Collector. The Tribunal emphasized that the department had not substantiated its claim that Blanc Fixe and Barytes are distinct commodities, and thus, the appellants were entitled to the exemption.
-
1998 (11) TMI 194
The case involves a stay application filed regarding the availment of Modvat credit. The appellants missed filing a declaration for a new item but later rectified the mistake and applied for condonation of delay. The department proceeded without considering the condonation application, leading to ex parte orders denying the benefit. The tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument, granted the stay, and accepted their request for waiver of pre-deposit.
-
1998 (11) TMI 193
Issues:
Classification under Notification 234/82 for duty exemption, End use condition for benefit eligibility, Distinction between bulk drugs and medicines, Limitation period for show cause notices, Jurisdiction of issuing show cause notices, Product classification under Central Excise Tariff.
Classification under Notification 234/82 for duty exemption:
The Notification exempts goods under T.I. 68 from duty, including bulk drugs and medicines not elsewhere specified. The end use condition is crucial for eligibility, applicable only to bulk drugs used as such. The benefit extended only to clearances to drug manufacturers, not industrial consumers. Duty held demandable due to non-compliance with end use condition.
Distinction between bulk drugs and medicines:
Clearance in measured doses prescribed by doctors distinguishes medicines from bulk drugs. Liquid Paraffin I.P. cleared in bulk not considered a medicine under the Notification. Mode of clearance determines classification as a bulk drug or medicine for duty exemption eligibility.
Limitation period for show cause notices:
Show cause notices covering periods beyond six months challenged. Jurisprudence cited regarding the authority to issue notices exceeding six months. Validity upheld for demands within six months from the date of issue, beyond which lack of jurisdiction nullifies demands.
Jurisdiction of issuing show cause notices:
Differentiating cases where wilful misstatement/suppression of facts alleged by competent authorities. Show cause notices by the Superintendent valid for demands within six months from the date of issue. Lack of wilful misstatement/suppression in the present case limits the applicability of relevant judgments.
Product classification under Central Excise Tariff:
Contention regarding the product being a mineral oil under T.I. 8 dismissed. Liquid Paraffin I.P. classified under T.I. 68, with the central issue being the product's eligibility for exemption under Notification 234/82. Previous judgments and evidence considered in determining the product's classification and eligibility for duty exemption.
The judgment concludes by affirming that the benefit under Notification 234/82 is not available for clearances to industrial consumers. The demand raised in one show cause notice is upheld, while demands in other notices are restricted to a six-month period from the date of issue. Requantification of duty for the limited period is directed to be carried out by the Assistant Commissioner. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 192
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refining process of vegetable oils amounts to a manufacturing process under Central Excise law.
2. Classification of the refined vegetable oils under sub-heading 1503.10 of the tariff.
3. Levy of excise duty on the refined vegetable oils.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Manufacturing Process under Central Excise Law:
The primary issue is whether the refining process carried out by the appellants on vegetable oils purchased from the open market constitutes a manufacturing process under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The appellants contended that refining does not amount to manufacture as it does not result in a new product with a different name, character, or use. They relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer (AIR 1961 SC 412), which held that processes like hydrogenation do not result in a new product. The Supreme Court emphasized that for a process to be considered manufacturing, it must bring into existence a new product known differently in the market.
2. Classification under Sub-heading 1503.10:
The Commissioner (Appeals) classified the refined vegetable oils under sub-heading 1503.10, which covers fixed vegetable oils that have undergone processes such as treatment with alkali or acid, bleaching, or deodorization. The appellants argued that such classification was incorrect as the refining process does not transform the oil into a new product. The Commissioner, however, noted that the processes mentioned in the tariff heading implied that the refined oils fall under sub-heading 1503.10.
3. Levy of Excise Duty:
The lower authorities held that the refining process made the vegetable oils excisable and dutiable. The appellants contested this, arguing that the refined oil remains the same substance as the raw oil and should not be subject to excise duty. They cited judgments such as Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (1977 (1) E.L.T. J 199) and Prem Ji Haridas & Co. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay (1997 (89) E.L.T. 658), which supported their stance that mere processing does not amount to manufacturing for excise purposes.
Separate Judgments:
Majority Opinion:
The majority opinion, including a detailed analysis by the Vice President and a third Member, concluded that the refined vegetable oils are excisable under sub-heading 1503.10. They emphasized that the tariff heading specifically mentions the processes, and therefore, the refined oils fall under this category. The majority held that the refined oils are marketable and the processes undertaken are covered by the tariff heading, making them excisable.
Dissenting Opinion:
The dissenting Member (Judicial) argued that the refining process does not amount to manufacturing as per the established legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court. He emphasized that the refined oil remains the same product and should not be classified under sub-heading 1503.10 or be subject to excise duty. He criticized the lower authorities for not following the Supreme Court's judgments and for judicial indiscipline.
Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the appeals were rejected, and the refined vegetable oils were held to be excisable under sub-heading 1503.10, confirming the levy of excise duty.
-
1998 (11) TMI 191
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai granted stay and disposed of the appeal regarding denial of Modvat credit due to dealer registration issues. The Tribunal held that the benefit of Modvat should not be denied based on procedural deviations, and allowed the appeal citing a precedent decision. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 190
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi decided that M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and the appellants are not related persons. The Tribunal held that the appellants are not liable to pay duty on the price charged by Jay Engineering Works to wholesalers. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. (Citation: 1998 (11) TMI 190 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1998 (11) TMI 189
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled on the classification of welding machines under Heading 85.15 or 85.04. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that welding machines with inbuilt transformers fall under Heading 85.15. The appeals were dismissed following a previous decision on the same issue.
-
1998 (11) TMI 188
The appeals involved a dispute over the classification of gems and Mr. Pops. The Commissioner classified gems under Heading 18.04 initially, but later under 18.03. The Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 18.03 for gems and dismissed other points not pressed by the parties. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 187
Issues: Confiscation of buses carrying smuggled goods; Liability of owners and drivers; Redemption of buses on payment of fine; Amount of fine for redemption.
In this case, the appellants, who are the owners of two buses, had their buses used to transport smuggled goods worth Rs. 15 lakhs each from Nepal to India. The goods were loaded by the tour organizer, Salim Chhipa, despite protests from passengers. The buses were provisionally released on a personal bond and cash security of Rs. 75,000 each. The impugned order confiscated the buses without offering the owners an option to redeem them by paying a fine. The appellants contended that they had no knowledge of the smuggled goods being carried and that Salim Chhipa was solely responsible. They requested the buses to be released on payment of a nominal fine due to being public carriers.
The learned JDR argued that the buses were liable for confiscation under Section 115(1) of the Customs Act as Salim Chhipa controlled the drivers and conductors, making the buses instrumental in carrying the smuggled goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the liability of the buses for confiscation but deemed the confiscation without the option of redemption illegal. The owners were granted the opportunity to redeem the buses by paying a fine, considering their lack of involvement or knowledge in the smuggling operation. The Tribunal decided that a fine of Rs. 30,000 each should be paid for the redemption of the buses, modifying the impugned order accordingly.
As the appellants had already deposited Rs. 75,000 each for the provisional release of the buses, the Tribunal ordered the refund of the balance amount of security after deducting the fine imposed for redemption. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing an option for redemption of confiscated property and considered the circumstances of the case in determining the appropriate amount of fine for redemption, taking into account the lack of involvement of the owners and drivers in the smuggling activities.
-
1998 (11) TMI 186
Issues:
1. Consolidated redemption fine imposed on two different Private Limited Companies for goods imported under four different Bill of Entries.
2. Prayers for waiver of pre-deposit in stay petitions.
3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice regarding test reports and personal hearing.
4. Imposition of penalty without specifying laws infringed.
5. Infirmities in the order-in-original regarding redemption fine, penalty, and confiscation.
Issue 1 - Consolidated Redemption Fine:
The judgment deals with appeals against an Order-in-Original that imposed a consolidated redemption fine of Rs. 11,00,000 on two Private Limited Companies for goods imported under four different Bill of Entries. The appellants argued that treating both companies as one group for the fine is incorrect as they are separate legal entities. The judgment found this consolidation technically flawed as it hindered the re-export of goods Bill of Entrywise. The order lacked specificity on fines for each Bill of Entry, leading to the setting aside of the order for reconsideration.
Issue 2 - Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
The appellants sought a waiver of pre-deposit in stay petitions. After considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal granted the waiver and proceeded to hear the main appeals.
Issue 3 - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The judgment highlighted violations of the Principles of Natural Justice regarding test reports and personal hearing. The appellants were not provided with copies of test reports crucial to the case, and despite waiving the show cause notice and personal hearing, they were entitled to be informed about the evidence used against them. The failure to provide essential information led to a clear breach of natural justice principles.
Issue 4 - Imposition of Penalty without Specific Grounds:
The order imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 without specifying the laws infringed by the importers, merely citing ignorance of correct procedure. The judgment found this penalty imposition lacking in equity and clarity, as it did not identify the specific legal violations leading to the penalty.
Issue 5 - Infirmities in the Order-in-Original:
The judgment identified several infirmities in the Order-in-Original, including the lack of clarity on why goods were liable for confiscation and the imposition of redemption fine. It noted the absence of discussion on correspondence between the importer and foreign supplier, which was crucial evidence. Additionally, the order failed to provide a legal basis for the penalty imposed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for copies of relied-upon test reports, a fair hearing for importers, and separate consideration of all Bill of Entries.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed various legal issues concerning the imposition of fines, waiver of pre-deposit, violations of natural justice principles, lack of specificity in penalty imposition, and infirmities in the original order, ultimately leading to a remand for reconsideration with specific directives for a fair and thorough review of the case.
............
|
9911796707
