2009 (12) TMI 445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....BER   M.S. Nagaraja for the Appellant. M. Vivekananda for the Respondent. ORDER P. Karthikeyan, Technical Member - After hearing both sides on the stay application filed by the appellant M/s. Lakshmi Polychem India Ltd., I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of without further hearing. Appeal proper is taken up for disposal. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner (Appeals) accepted the submission and prayer of the appellant that the ledger account did not represent freight amounts and that the appellants' claim needed verification. Vide the impugned order, penalty of Rs. 1,73,977 imposed on the appellant under section 78 of the Act was set aside. He upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed under section 77 of the Act. He did not pass any orders a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....side. 3. Learned SDR submits that since the impugned order did not sustain any demand from the appellants, the matter could be remanded for a fresh decision by the original authority as regards the demand of Rs. 72,028 and penalties, if any, the appellant was found liable for. 4. I have carefully considered the case records and the submissions made by both sides. I find that the impugned ord....