9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aule. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.64/KOL-II/2006 dated 22.09.2006 whereby ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order confirming demand of duty of Rs.1,57,148/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only) and equal amount of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usand One Hundred and Forty Eight only) and imposed a penalty of equal amount under rule 173Q. Aggrieved by the same the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner(Appeals), who has upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order. Hence the appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the goods were not finished goods and therefore question of raising demand against the same is not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application is not decided. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. We find that the demand of duty is linked with the remission of duty. Undisputedly the application for remission of duty is not yet decided. In these circumstances the case is remanded to lower adjudicating authority to decide the issue after the disposal of the application dated 22.05.2007 for remis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
