2002 (9) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate, for the Applicant. Shri Ajit Awasthi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs 40,45,208.37 confirmed as duty and Rs. 10,000/- imposed as penalty, it appeared that for the reasons stated below, the appeal itself could be disposed off. Both sides agreeing this was done. 2.&emsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... liable to be recovered as also mentioned a further figure of Rs. 93,54,034.37 as recoverable without giving any grounds as to how this figure was computed. 4. Dy. Commissioner adjudicated the case. He referred to some verification report given by the Range Officer which report did not figure in the show cause notice at all. He also referred to some invoices and held that since the modvata....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the levy of penalty was not justified since the lapse of was technical in nature. The Commissioner (Appeals) without giving the assessees an opportunity passed the interim orders directing pre-deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Against this order the assessees filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal as not being maintainable. Shortly thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appea....