9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of chewing scented tobacco/zarda falling under Chapter 2403 of CETA, 1985 and are availi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of Rs. 2,48,648/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs. 24,664/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants at the outset fairly conceded that on merit, he has no case in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order. 6. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that on merit, the appellant has fairly conceded the case in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cellular Operators Association of India (supra). As far as penalty is concerned, I find that it was a bona fide mistake of the appellant to utilize th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
