9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant Shri H.H. Dixit, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: M V Ravindran: These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No: 233/11/Commr./V/2005 dated 27/05/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - V. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, we find that the issue that falls for consideration is regarding demand of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hancement of penalty which was disposed of by final order No. A/432/14 dated 13/02/2004. He points out that Revenue's appeal was rejected by the bench upholding the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that in these appeals, the main appellant as well as the co-appellant is contesting the imposition of penalties also. It is his submission that the demands confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Court. On merits, the argument of the appellants is unacceptable to us that is not manufacturing computer system. 7. On limitation, we find that appellant has a case in their favour, as against the very same impugned order, in Revenue's appeal, the bench while dismissing the appeal, held as under: "4. On perusal of the record, I find that in the show-cause notice there is no allegation of frau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
