9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This appeal is against demand of duty of over Rs. 25 lakhs on a product called Glucovita - Glueon D for the period 1-3-1986 to 11-5-1990, raised by learned Commissioner in the impugned order. The appellant is also aggrieved by the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on him by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said goods, which were manufactured by M/s. CPCIL. In adjudication of this notice, the Collector of Central Excise passed Order-in-Original dated 12-12-1991 confirming the entire demand of duty against M/s. CPCIL and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, besides a separate penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant. The aggrieved parties preferred appeals to this Tribunal and the appeals were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant to the Commissioner s order is irresistible. The following submissions of their Counsel merit serious consideration :- (a) The impugned order fixing duty liability on the appellant is beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, wherein duty had been demanded from another party viz., M/s. CPCIL. (b) The findings recorded by the lower authority in the context of consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SH 1702.21 of the CETA Schedule. As the period of dispute (barring 2 months) is prior to issuance of the second circular, the appellant must get the benefit of the first circular. We have heard learned SDR also with reference to the above points raised by learned Counsel. 3 It appears from the records that all the points raised by learned Counsel for the appellant are eminently valid. We have al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
