9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,21,41,847.25, imposed on the appellants, had imposed a penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs and had confiscated the land, building, etc. with a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh under his order dated 14-7-93. The appellants succeeded in appeal before the Tribunal. By majority order dated 12-10-94, the Tribunal held that the demands were to be confirmed for six months period and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty and fine, it has to be concluded that the order of penalty and fine has been left untouched by the Tribunal. The ld. DR, while justifying the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), also cites the following two case laws :- (i) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 337 (T). (ii) Kays International v. Collector of Customs - 1990 (45) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the duty liability for a period of six months as against the initial demand for a period of 5 years. In the absence of any specific direction with regard to penalty and fine, it has to be presumed that the order of the remand annuls the order-in-original in toto and the matter thereafter required to be decided afresh. The imposition of penalty and fine has also to be related to the quantum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
