9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 83/M-I/2006 dated 21/12/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding redemption fine imposed of Rs. 2.25 lakhs on the appellant herein in respect of the various purchases made by them of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest and imposed penalties. The very same order-in-original, which is before us, was challenged by M/s Interscape before the Tribunal in appeal No. E/311 to 314/2007. The said appeals were allowed by the bench by final order No. A/3007-3010/15/EB dated 08/09/2015 holding that : "6.5 The revenue, in the appellant own case has accepted that the extended period cannot be invoked for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not stand good any more. In view of the fact that demand of duty, holding that the goods were manufactured and liable to duty, has been set aside and as the said order is not unconnected from the impugned order, nothing survives for holding that the goods are liable to confiscation. 5. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the confiscation as ordered by the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
