9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. As per facts on record, a show cause notice dated 29-1-1999 was issued to the appellants proposing confirmation of demand of duty on the allegations of clubbing of clearances. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner who vide his order dated 28-9-2000 confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 1,31,405/- against M/s. Parth Equipment along with im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for considering the appellants request for further reduction in penalty depending upon the quantum of duty to be re-quantified. 4. In de novo proceedings, Asst. Commissioner, by extending the benefit of cum-duty price, reduced the duty from Rs. 1,31,405/- to Rs. 1,26,753/- in the case of M/s. Parth Equipments and from Rs. 27,741/- to Rs. 26,420/- in the case of M/s. Acme Industries. As regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the facts, the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals), granting benefit of cum-duty to the assessee and reducing penalties was not appealed against by the Revenue, though the same was appealed against by the appellant before the Tribunal, who remanded the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for consideration of reduction in penalties after re-quantifying the demand. In de novo pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
