TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder (Oral)]. - Both these appeals raise a common question of law and facts and hence they are taken up together for final hearing after allowing the stay applications granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order against both the appellants. 2. This is the second round of litigation. The Tribunal, by Final Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty is disproportionate and the matter was not in terms of law and, therefore, the matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to readjudicate and fix the same penalty as fixed in M/s. Bangalore Mono Filaments. The Revenue had accepted the penalty imposed on M/s, Bangalore Mono Filaments by OIA No. 140/2000-C.E., dated 12-5-2000 to an extent of Rs. 1,000/-. In the present matter, the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in fixing the penalty in respect of these parties dis proportionately without any rhyme or reason. The learned Counsel submits that the Commissioner has not understood the Tribunal s order and without any appeal against M/s. Bangalore Mono Filaments s order, he had enhanced the penalty to M/s. Bangalore Mono Filaments and has held that the penalty of both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) in modifying the OIA No. 140/2000-C.E., dated 12-5-2000 when there was no appeal or an order of remand on the said point by the Tribunal. The contention raised by the appellants in the present case about the enhancing of penalties in respect of M/s. Bangalore Mono Filaments and keeping the penalty in respect of the appellants at par is totally not as per law. This submission is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
