2008 (7) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the following three questions : "(A) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in upholding Commissioner (Appeals)'s order inasmuch as setting aside the order for confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine? (B) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order inasmuch as reducing penalty imposed on the respondent under Rule .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ded the following finding : "After hearing Ld. SDR Shri P.K. Katiyar appearing for the Revenue, and after going through the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), I do not find any infirmity in the order. The Revenue has not been able to produce on record any evidence to show that the goods not entered in R.G.I records were meant for clandestine removal in this view, the appellate autho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Appeals] and the Tribunal in light of the fact that no other evidence to dislodge the said explanation had been brought on record by revenue. Furthermore, there is no dispute as to the fact that the goods were yet lying in factory premises. (2) In the circumstances, no interference is warranted in the impugned order of Tribunal. No question, as proposed or otherwise, much less a substantial que .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X