2016 (2) TMI 952

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty and imposing redemption fine and penalty on them by way of impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that at the premises No. F-10, Opposite Vijaya Bank, Samaypur Badli, Delhi-42, a seizure took place on 27-11-2007 wherein certain goods with the brand name of the appellant was found and the statement of Sh. Vinod Kumar, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d from the appellant and redemption fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- was imposed. A penalty of Rs. 1,82,437/- was also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not the owner of the said goods. Although, these goods having the brand name of the appellant, i.e., Talab, Dilbagh and Tez but as appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubmitted that they are not owner of the goods and they have given explanation thereto that they are selling goods in cash. In that circumstances, I hold that duty demand and imposing of penalty on the appellant is not sustainable. With these terms, the impugned order. Qua demanding duty from the appellant and imposing penalty thereon is set aside. 7. With these terms appeal is allowed. (Dic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X