TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J)].- This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-original, dated 27-7-1992 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Judicial), Bombay I vide which he ordered re-quantification of the duty and also imposed penalty of various amounts on the appellants. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under: 3. The appellants are manufacturer of excisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding the duty demand he directed the re-quantification by the Assistant Collector (Preventive). 3. The appellants being dissatisfied with this order of the Collector has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The validity of the impugned order of the Collector has been assailed by the learned counsel on the main ground that no penalty could be imposed without quantifying the amount and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have gone through the record. The perusal of the impugned order itself shows that without quantifying the duty amount the Collector had imposed the penalties of various amounts, on the appellants. In our view, the penalties could only be imposed after determining the duty amount. The re-quantification of the duty amount was in fact required to be done by the adjudicating authority i.e., Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
