2006 (6) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant. Shri Manoj Krishna, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,44,97,287/- and personal penalty of Rs. 25 Lakhs imposed upon the first applicant M/s. Anil Products Ltd. and Rs. 1 Lakh each imposed on the other two applicants. 2. After hea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation list, which were approved by the proper officer. 3. The above order of the Commissioner was appealed against by the appellant on the ground that he should not have confirmed demand even for a period of six months in view of law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Cotspun Ltd. The order was also challenged on merits. The said order was remanded by Tribunal vide i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty. 5. We fully agree with the submissions by the learned advocate. It was not opened to the Commissioner to confirm the entire demand of duty raised against the appellant for the extended period. The said show cause notice was adjudicated and the demand beyond the normal period was already dropped by the Commissioner. The dispute only related to the confirming demand of duty of Rs. 9.61 L....