9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essor of fabric. They have removed excisable goods without payment of duty. During the investigation some stock of excisable goods was found short, accordingly a show cause notice was issued which was adjudicated as Order-in-Original No. dated 22-2-2002 whereby confirmed the duty of Rs. 11,44,521/- with interest and equal penalty. Against the confiscation, penalty of Rs. 5 lacs and redemption find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 9-9-2005 appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the order of the Adjudicating authority and therefore appellant are before me. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. 3. On the other hand, Shri. M.R. Melvin, Ld. Superintendent (AR.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant and also the provisions of law relating to the subject matter. It reveals from the records while ordering re quantification of seized goods with it value and re-calculation of duty liability and reduction of penalties the then Commissioner(Appeals) did not allow the respondent to offer such opportunity to the appellant as no such request was made before Commissioner(Appeals) and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the records that though the Consultant during the personal hearing contended that the Hon'ble Tribunal has granted stay on the proceedings of appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 31-7-2003 but no such evidence was produced. In any case, CBEC vide Circular NO.824/01/2006-CX dated 16-1-2006 has clarified that any stay against the order confirming the demand and or levying penalty is only with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
