9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nshuman Chopra, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Rajesh Bindal J. 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated 14.3.2014, passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Custom Appeal No. C/732/2008-Cus (DB): "(a) Whether imposition of fine and penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who vide order dated 18.8.2008, reduced redemption fine to Rs. 2,00,000/- and penalty to Rs. 1,20,000/-. The appellant preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The department also filed appeal bearing Custom Appeal No. C/719/2008-CUS (DB). The Tribunal, after hearing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the appeal filed by the department was dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 5. In our opinion, the substantial question of law, which arises for consideration by this court in the present appeal, is: Whether redemption fine and penalty, as determined by the first appellate authority, can be increased further by the Tribunal in the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. But in the case in hand, the facts are otherwise. The appeal filed by the revenue was specifically dismissed. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the order passed by the first appellate authority was set aside and the quantum of redemption fine and penalty was increased. That course was not possible in the appeal filed by the assessee, especially when the appeal filed by the department had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
