TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was answered in favour of the appellants and against the Revenue with an order of remand for fresh decision by the tribunal - The tribunal will examine the entire controversy once again, without being influenced by the earlier order - The tribunal will be at liberty to impose redemption fine in accordance with law without taking into notice the earlier fine - If required and necessary, the respondent will be entitled to meet and answer the contentions after verification as permitted and allowed under the rules. - CEAC 37/2012, CEAC 38/2012, CEAC 39/2012 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Shikha Sapra Yariagadda Mr. Sanjeev Jaiswal, Advocates. For the Respondent : Ms. Soni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty on the manufacture under Rule 25 thereof. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the redemption fine, which has been imposed on three appellants, which is as under:- Sr. No. Name Amount (Rs.) 1. M/s. Micro Super Cables (P) Limited, Unit-I Rs.1,25,000/- 2. Micro Super Cables Private Limited, Unit-II Rs.1,25,000/- 3. Bombay Metal Industries Rs.60,000/- 4. For the sake of clarity, we note that personal fines were also imposed on the directors of the two companies but they have not preferred any appeal and the order of the tribunal against them have become final. The tribunal had substantially reduced personal penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbay Metal Industries, it was stated that excess stock of 113 Kg. involving duty of Rs.2,912/- was found and the balance stock was completely accounted and recorded. It is accordingly submitted that without adjudication and decision on the said aspect, the quantum of redemption fine should not have been ascertained and imposed. The adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority, including the tribunal, have not gone and examined the said aspect while fixing the quantum of redemption fine. 6. We have examined the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants wherein the said contention has been explicitly raised. However, we find neither the adjudicating authority, first appellate authority and the tribunal have dealt with and exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
