2011 (2) TMI 987

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... olved in the present appeals is as regards quantum of penalty required to be imposed under the provisions of Rule 96ZQ(5). It is seen that the Original Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty equivalent to the duty confirmed. The stay order of Dy. Commissioner was challenged by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced the penalty.   2. The Tribunal vide its Order No.A/994-996/2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e it clear that the appellants would be at liberty to raise the issue, if any, before the adjudicating authorities. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.   3. In a parallel proceeding, the Revenue also challenged the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reduced penalty on the ground that equal amount of penalty is required to be imposed under Rule 96ZQ(5). The said appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner (Appeals) should have remanded the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.   6. In view of the above, I set aside the present impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority for de-novo decision along with the earlier remanded matter in the light of the observations as contained in the above reproduced paragraph .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X