2008 (5) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R, for the Respondent. [Order]. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal of the assessees against the adjudication order of the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad confirming a duty demand of Rs. 3,03,366.30 and appropriating penalty of Rs. 75,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants who are engaged in the manufactur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tant Commissioner passed order dated 28-7-2000 confirming the demand and imposing penalty; this order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. In the remand order the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the charge of misdeclaration of factory instead of depot would not survive if the address shown at Ghaziabad is where th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent impugned order has committed the same error in holding that the endorsement of bill of entry from head office to factory only is permissible and head office working as dealer cannot endorse bill of entry to its depot. In other words both the authorities below have gone beyond the scope of the earlier remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since there is no dispute that the address shown i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X