9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. The Tribunal had already passed an order in relation to this appeal vide Final Order Nos. 332-333/97-A, dated 25-2-1997 deciding the question of inclusion of value of caps on the aluminium collapsible tubes in favour of the appellants herein. 3. An ROM application was filed by the Revenue pointing out that the issues involved in the appeal namely - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it related to the present appeal. That order stands insofar as it relates to the other appeal, namely, E/3594/87-A. 5. We have now heard the learned Advocate, Shri G.P. Srivastava and the learned SDR, Shri K. Srivastava. We agree with the learned SDR that the subject appeal involved only the question of imposition of penalty and imposition of fine in view of the aforesaid two points regardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese were rejected by the customers of the aluminium collapsible tubes who had returned the material to the appellants herein. A proper D-3 intimation had been given by the appellants to the concerned Revenue authorities. Therefore, there could not be any question of accounting the same and there is no record required for accounting the same. This submission of the learned Advocate is contested by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion fine from Rs. 17,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. Similarly, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-. If the goods have not been removed so far, they should be taken into account in the RG 1 and duty will be paid in the normal course at the time of removal thereof from the factory. In case, the goods have already been removed without payment of duty, appropriate duty as leviable on the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
