9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed to redeem the seized cash on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Revenue has filed this appeal on two grounds: (a) The case law which has been relied by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in the case of Bhagwan R. Daswani Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2010 (262) ELT 822 (Tri.Mum) has been in challenged befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions. 4. I find that this appeal was filed by the Revenue on 8.9.2016 and copy of the same was served on the respondent. Respondents were required to file cross objection, if any, within 45 days of the receipt of the appeal memo. Admittedly, till date, no cross objections have been filed by the respondents. Moreover, on 15.11.2016, the application for condonation of delay filed by the Revenue w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank account of N.R. Steels, in HDFC Bank, Bhilai, and the same is carried by its staff Mr. Kailash) had attached copy of bank statement) and remaining Rs. 16,35,000/- is amount received from Moon Metals, Delhi, to purchase material from Prakash Industries Ltd. (copy of ledger received from the party attached). The respondent has furnished the above details vide its letter dated 29.3.2014 and 8.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hagwan R. Daswani (supra). Therefore, the same cannot be the reason that as the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court against the order of this Tribunal to set aside the impugned order. 8. In that circumstances, I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the ld. A.R. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
