9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (T)]. - Heard both sides. The adjudicating Commissioner had passed the impugned order-in-original dated 20-12-1996 confiscating the impugned goods and allowing release of the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 27,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also imposed. 2.On appeal by the respondents, the Tribunal passed an order dated 21-05-1997 reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 25,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the very same order-in-original, the Tribunal had already passed an order reducing the fine and penalty on 21-5-1997. As such, the Tribunal then passed an order dated 17-10-2003 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication directing re-determination of fine and penalty. 5.In the present application, the applicant Commissioner has sought for a clarification as to whether he can proceed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 (146) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.), in which it has been decided that the doctrine of merger cannot have application when the appeal decided earlier was restricted to another question. In this case, the respondent's appeal was decided reducing the fine and penalty in Tribunal's earlier Order dated 21-5-1997. We find from the prayer in the Revenue's appeal that the relief sought is for imposition of dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there is a need for harmonizing the time limits prescribed under Section 129A(3) and under Section 129D to ensure that the Department does not lose its chance for pursuing an appeal as it has happened in this case. 9.The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Member (Legal and Judicial) in the Board, who may consider initiating necessary steps to bring such harmonization in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
