9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntesting the issue on merit as regards confiscation of raw material, the amount of Rs.5 lakhs which has been paid by the appellant when they sought clearance of the confiscated goods, can be considered as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal, where there is a penalty of Rs.7.5 lakhs – Relying upon J.J. Packgers (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Allahabad [2005 (12) TMI 333 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eversing the said amount of duty involved in such raw material. The lower authorities have come to conclusion that the appellant is liable to be penalized under Rule 25 as the said raw material which was seized by the lower authorities was ordered to be confiscated and redemption fine has been imposed. 4. Ld. Chartered Accountant, at the outset, submits that the appellant had paid the redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as much as the such goods were raw material on which CENVAT Credit was availed by the appellant. For this proposition, ld. Chartered Accountant would rely upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of J.J. Packgers (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Allahabad 2006 (196) ELT 381 (Tri-Del). It is seen that the appellant is contesting the confiscation order and also the penalties imposed by the lower authorities. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
