2009 (3) TMI 698

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)]. In terms of the impugned order, the appellants are required to pre-deposit the following amounts : (a) Duty of Rs. 55,51,491/- (Rupees Fifty-five lakhs Fifty-one Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety-one only) (b) Penalty of Rs. 55,51,491/- (Rupees Fifty-five lakhs Fifty-one Thousand Four Hundred and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cations, one relating to the product packed in the unit container. It is the contention of the appellant that in their case the product is not packed in unit container. In this connection, he invited our attention to the definition of unit container under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and stated that the container or the pack in which the said goods are packed cannot be considered as unit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case have to be examined only at the time of final hearing. Presently, the appellants have a decision in their favour. Moreover, in view of the different interpretations of the departmental authorities, prima facie, the longer period would not be applicable to the present case. In these circumstances, we order full waiver of the dues demanded in the impugned order. No coercive measures should be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X