9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The Revenue has raised the following question of law arising out of the Tribunal s Order No. A-1049/Cal/98, dated 7-12-1998 passed in the case of M/s. Hitachi Chemicals :- (1) Whether Hon ble CEGAT is legally correct in restricting the adjudicating authority in the de novo proceedings by relying on the observation made by the first adjudicating au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intentional violation of the I.T.C. Policy. In this connection relevant para 9 of the Tribunal s Order is reproduced below :- 9. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced by both sides. On the question raised by the ld. Advocate to the effect that the redemption fine could not be converted into penalty by the adjudicating authority is quite well founded. Initially, there was no personal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission filed before the lower authority wherein a specific plea has been taken that in the instant case, penalty is not warranted. Therefore, the lower authority without considering this plea at all has remanded the matter on merits. We are of the view that this point of the appellants is sustainable. Therefore, in view of this, our direction to the adjudicating authority is, not to impose an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment in the case of Bansidhar Lakshmi Prasad v. Union of India and Ors. - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 385). 4. After hearing both the sides we agree with the contention of the ld. Advocate that it is a settled proposition of law that an Order of remand to the department, the favourable directions obtained by the appellant from the adjudicating officer in the original proceedings cannot be disturbed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
