9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- Revenue is not contesting the fact that confiscation of the goods seized in the hands of current respondent or in the hands of suppliers of the goods in Delhi. Since the goods have held to be not liable for confiscation - demand of differential duty not sustainable - E/378/2006 - A/497/2012/WZB/AHD - Dated:- 2-4-2012 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsence of any representation. 3. Heard the learned SDR. 4. On perusal of grounds of appeal, we find that the Revenue has come in appeal before us by taking the following grounds of appeal :- The Commissioner (Appeals) in the last line of Para 9 of the OIA has observed that consequently the demand of differential duty of Rs. 48,138/- is also not sustainable . The Commissioner (Appeals) appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be paid. Hence, the portion of O-I-A setting aside the order of confirmation of differential duty of Rs. 48,138/- by making wrong correlation with the issue of confiscation of seized goods, may be set-aside. 5. We find that the first appellate authority has held that the differential duty of Rs. 48,138/- is not sustainable by recording the following findings :- 9. Regarding the dispute o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustainable. 6. It can be seen from the grounds of appeal that Revenue is not contesting the fact that confiscation of the goods seized in the hands of current respondent or in the hands of suppliers of the goods in Delhi. Since the goods have held to be not liable for confiscation, the conclusion arrived at by the first appellate authority in this case as to non-sustainability of demand of diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
