2015 (10) TMI 2193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f earlier order, but an altogether different view is taken - Impugned order dated 05.09.2006 is set aside and earlier order dated 22.11.2005 is restored – Rectification limited to redemption fine.
Mr. A.K. Sikri And Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ For the Petitioner : Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG., Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. A. K. Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Pratik, Adv. And .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by this Court wherein the appeal of the Revenue/Customs Authorities was allowed and it was held that the respondent herein is liable to pay the penalty. The matter in that respect was remitted back to the CESTAT to dispose of the appeal on its own merits. Operative portion of the order reads as under:- "34. We find that reference was made by departmental authorities to the proviso appended to su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f limitation. That being so we find no substance in the plea of learned counsel for the respondents that the action taken by authorities was beyond the period of limitation. Even otherwise, the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 28 is clearly applicable as the materials clearly indicate non levy and short levy on account of misrepresentation of facts by the respondents." On remand, the CESTAT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X