9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me to be purchased by the appellants under deed of conveyance dated 15.05.2002 - appellants have already deposited 50% of the duty, find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter to the Commissioner to deal with the appeal on merits in accordance with provision of law, while considering the deposit of 50% of duty to be sufficient for the compliance of Section 35F of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants were required to pay the duty to the tune of Rs. 108846/- alongwith equal amount of penalty and the personal penalty against the Director to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Under the order dated 20.03.2002, the appellants were required to pay the penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. Under order dated 02.11.2004, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the duty and penalty. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owners of the factory. It does not appear to be in dispute that the factory originally belonged to M/s Prakashalika Marbles Pvt. Limited which came to be purchased by the appellants under deed of conveyance dated 15.05.2002. Considering the fact that important question of law and facts having been raised by the appellants and they having already deposited 50% of the duty, we find it appropriate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
