2004 (7) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. -  In both these appeals which have been filed by the appellants against the common impugned order-in-appeal imposing penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on the firm, appellants no. 1 and of Rs. 10,000/- on its partner, appellant no. 2, and ordering confiscation of the seized goods redeemable on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- on the ground that they had failed to maintain records. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng on the record to suggest if from that record it revealed that the appellants have crossed the specified limit, so as to enable the officers to order the confiscation of the goods and impose penalty on the appellants for non-maintaining the record. 3.In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside in toto and the appeals of the appellants are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X