2012 (6) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nda: 1. Heard both sides. 2. Challenging the first appellate order dated 30.6.2004 the appellants submit that both the authorities below did not appreciate the contents of the 14 order forms showing no dyeing of fabrics covered by such orders. Few samples of such orders are appearing in pages 72 to 76 of the appeal folder to grant relief to the appellant since the order forms show no dyeing of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods for different parties, that made the appellant liable to duty. The appellant was also not registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, both authorities below passed proper orders. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Appellants' grievance was only relating to 14 order forms covering the goods which were alleged to be subject matter of process of dyeing and goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e course of hearing before the Tribunal. Thus duty demand is bound to be confirmed. We order accordingly. 6. Ld. Counsel argued that if Tribunal comes to the conclusion that adjudication is sustainable, duty element having been paid, concession in penalty may be granted. It was argued that penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty may be leviable following the ratio laid down in the following judg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X