2002 (1) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. -  Shri V. Lakshmikumaran with Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Counsels arguing the case for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 12,23,888.84 (rupees twelve lac twenty three thousand eight hundred eighty eight and paise eighty four) and penalty of equivalent amount submits that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quantity of the metal containers used by the applicant(s) during the period from 30th July, 1991 to 31st December, 1991. The Assistant Collector adjudicated the case when the assessee filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). He allowed the appeal of the applicant. The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) attained finality inasmuch as no appeal was filed by the Department against this or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... msp;Ms. Ananya Ray, learned SDR has nothing to add. 6. We have heard the learned Counsels for the applicant(s). We note that the Order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) had attained finality as there was no appeal against that order and therefore, the demand on the same goods for the same period of the same amount does not prima facie appear correct. In the circumstances pre-deposit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X