9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohd. Altaf, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned Chartered Accountant, Shri Kapil Vaish on behalf of the appellant and learned AR, Shri Mohammad. Altaf on behalf of the Revenue, I note that the appellant was manufacturer of goods falling under Chapter 70 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal Authority decided the matter through Order-in-Original dated 27.02.2017, wherein the goods were ordered to be confiscated under Provision of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under the said Rule penalty of Rs. 4,25,000/- was imposed on the appellant. Further, option to redeem the confiscated goods was provided on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4,25,000/-. The other appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11A and 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 with that of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 indicates that only if Central Excise Duty is demanded by invoking provisions of said Section 11A than only provisions of said Rule 25 can be invoked. 4. The learned AR has supported the impugned order. 5. Having considered the submissions from both the sides, I note that on provisional release the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
