9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing Shri S.K. Roy Chowdhury, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR, for the Department, pre-deposit of personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by the Commissioner under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is dispensed with for the reasons recorded below and the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides. 2. Drawing attention to the ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be set aside and matter remanded to the adjudicating authority on this limited ground. Arguing further, he submits that during the adjudication the applicant made a prayer for supplying them the physical stock-taking report. This request was further reiterated by them during the course of personal hearing as has been recorded by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. Neverthele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y redemption fine. In the circumstances he prays for rejection of the appeal itself. 4. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides. From a reading of the impugned order I find that the appellants had made a prayer for supply of physical stock-taking report before they filed a reply to the show cause notice. However, reply was filed by them without such report. It has been further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the goods on payment of redemption fine as may be found fit by her in the facts and circumstances of the case. For all these reasons, I hold that the matter is required to be remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication in the light of the observations made above. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order and remand the case for fresh adjudication. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
