2006 (1) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - The misc. application seeks for rectification of mistake in the Final Order Nos. 891 to 897/2005, dated 6-6-2005. The appellant was one of the parties in the Final Order. The Final Order was passed in respect of seven parties. The appeals of the seven parties were taken up together for disposal as the issue raised was common. The question that arose .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arned Counsel submits that Rule 26 does not come into the operation as there has to be confiscation of goods for imposition of penalty. In the present case, there was no proposal to confiscate the goods and, therefore, penalty was not leviable. He points out to the OIO which clearly refers to the duty having been paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice by the Maharaja Industries. He submits tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X