TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be not justified - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the amount of penalty, which order has been affirmed in appeal - Appeal is dismissed - 3 of 2010 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 25-3-2011 - MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA, MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, JJ. Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, for the applicant HEMANT GUPTA, J. The present appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the exemption was not available to the specified goods bearing the Brand Name or Trade Name of another person. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the said seized branded goods valued at Rs.37,982/- besides imposition of penalty. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of central excise duty of Rs.1,37,560/- and imposition of penalty. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to pass orders upholding the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) when the Tribunal had already set aside the findings of reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals)? (ii) Whether the Tribunal should have correct the error in ROM filed by the Department? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in passing two self contradictory Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the penalty could not be reduced to Rs.25,000/-. There was dispute regarding liability of payment of duty. Therefore, imposition of penalty was found to be not justified. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the amount of penalty, which order has been affirmed in appeal. In view of the said finding, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
