2008 (11) TMI 456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant. Shri D.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After hearing both the sides, we find that neither any demand stands confirmed against the appellant nor any penalty stands imposed requiring any dispensation with the pre-deposit of the same, in terms of provisions of Section 35F. We also noted that vide his .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tral Excise authorities and the goods were released provisionally to the appellant. 3. The appellants challenged the detention order before Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority held that such detention order is not appealable and accordingly rejected the appeal, hence the present appeal. 4. For better appreciation, we re-produce para 4.2 of the impugned order :- 4.2 In terms of a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of Section 35 of the Act must be read with circumspection so that due justice is delivered to everybody. As observed by the appellate authority, such detention of goods was with a view to further investigate the matter. As such, investigation by the Revenue may result either in benefit to the assessee or against them. In any case, the appellate authorities, under the Act having no jurisdict .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X