9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has rejected the appeal of the Revenue, Revenue has filed further appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture and removal of Pan Masala and Pan Masala containing tobacco (Gutkha) falling under Chapter sub-headings 2106.00 and 2404.49 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f demand, confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said Order-in-Original dated 27-5-2005 before the CESTAT. The CESTAT vide Final Order Nos. 732-737/2011-EX(DB), dated 12-8-2011 [2012 (278) E.L.T. 336 (Tribunal)] remanded the case for de novo adjudication. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow readjudicated the case vide his Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (2) of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reviewed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Lucknow and observed that the said Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Lucknow is not legal and proper and directed to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Lucknow. Hence, this appeal has been f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same provides for refund of duty and interest. The cash seized from the respondent cannot be considered as duty or interest. I find no merits in the above contention of the Revenue. The cash recovered from the respondent premises, has to be refunded to them, on the success of their main case. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order. I uphold the same. Accordingly the appeal filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
