9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Srinivasan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sujay N. Kantawala, Advocate, for the Applicant. Shri A. Chopra, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The matter was adjourned on the last occasion when it came to the light that only one appeal had been filed against the order of the Commissioner disposing of seven appeals before him, Counsel for the applicant so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the applicant was aware that the Commissioner had disposed of seven appeals but applicant was unaware of the fact that such appeals were required to be filed. Accordingly we condone the delay. 4. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 21.94 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 3.15 lakhs. Duty has been demanded on the ground that the applicants were not entitled to the benefit of Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent class of goods. He also relies upon the decision of the Taj Serpent Egg Factory v. CCE - 1996 (85) E.L.T. 78 and Precise Electronics v. CCE - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 69. 6. The Departmental representative cites the decision of CCE v. Control Tech Electronics - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 369 in support. The question for consideration in the two decisions that the Counsel for the applicant relies upon is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
