9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the duty has not so far been quantified while the penalty amount has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order, in our view, it is a fit case where the pre-deposit of the penalty amount must be dispensed with. Accordingly, the stay application of the appellants i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ister showing the manufacture/clearances of the goods. They were sent the show cause notice but it could not be served on them personally and the same was ultimately pasted on the door of the factory premises of the appellants. The Additional Commissioner thereafter confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 13,46,103.75 on them and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the firm and of Rs. 25,000/- on eac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty amount could not be confirmed till the duty amount was quantified by the adjudicating authority. On the other hand, the learned JDR while refuting this contention of the counsel, has contended that on merits the appellants have no case as they have been rightly denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. 6. We have gone through the record. The perusal of the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the Additional Commissioner. Therefore, to this extent the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legally sustainable. 8. The plea of the appellants that they were not served with a show cause notice, on the face of it cannot be accepted by the Tribunal, being a question of fact. The perusal of the order-in-original shows that they were sent the show cause notice number of times, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
