TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edemption Fine is shown as ₹ 2,00,000/- and penalty on M/s. Metro is proposed, the same is contrary to the Review Order. As the Revenue has not corrected the said discrepancies pointed out by the respondents, therefore, I hold that the appeal filed against M/s. Metro is defective, hence not maintainable. The review order directs to file the appeal to the extent of demand of ₹ 28,07,0897- whereas in the appeal memo the amount of duty has been mentioned as ₹ 36,88,077/- and penalty was also sought to be imposed of ₹ 36,88,077/- - Held that: - appeal is defective. On that account itself, appeal is not maintainable against M/s. Pymen Cable India. In the Review Order, there is no proposal to file the appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has partially allowed the appeal filed before him by M/s. Pymen Cables (India) and appeals of other respondents were allowed in full. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent filed Misc. applications on the ground that appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable on various grounds. The learned counsel for the respondent also filed Misc. applications on the ground that in the impugned order Redemption fine of ₹ 1,82,392/- has been imposed on M/s. Metro but in appeal memo the amount of redemption fine has been mentioned as ₹ 2 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue is defective which is required to be rejected. He also submits that in appeal they are also praying that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed Misc. applications on the ground that in the impugned order Redemption fine has been imposed on M/s. Metro to the tune of ₹ 1,82,392/- but in appeal Memo, it is shown as ₹ 2,00,000/- and penalty of ₹ 9,00,000/- is proposed to be imposed but there is no such proposal in the Review Order. 9. I have perused the Review order. On perusal of the Review order, I find that the Committee of Commissioners has directed that the appeals is to be filed against M/s. Metro recording the fact that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the Redemption Fine to ₹ 1,82,392/- and no proposal for imposing penalty on M/s. Metro but, in the Appeal Memo, the amount of Redemption Fine is shown as ₹ 2,00,000/- and penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rg, accordingly, I hold that the appeal filed by the Revenue deserves no merits, hence the same is dismissed. The Misc. Application filed by Shri Sandeep Garg is also disposed of in the above terms. 13. In last, I find that the Committee of Commissioners has proposed to file appeal against M/s. Ashok Cable Corporation, therefore, the prayer of the learned Counsel is not acceptable that the Committee of Commissioners has not proposed to file appeal against M/s. Ashok Cable Corporation. As there is no arguments advanced on the merits in this appeal, the same is required to be heard on merits, therefore, the Registry is directed to list the said appeal for hearing on 22.01.2016. 14. In the result, the following order is passed: a) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
