2012 (6) TMI 463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent (s)   Per Shri S.K.Gaule.   1. Heard both sides.   2. Appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.64/KOL-II/2006 dated 22.09.2006 whereby ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order confirming demand of duty of Rs.1,57,148/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s.1,57,148/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only) and imposed a penalty of equal amount under rule 173Q. Aggrieved by the same the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner(Appeals), who has upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order. Hence the appeal.   4. The contention of the appellant is that the goods were not finished goods and therefore questi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hed goods. However, he agreed that the remission application is not decided.   6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. We find that the demand of duty is linked with the remission of duty. Undisputedly the application for remission of duty is not yet decided. In these circumstances the case is remanded to lower adjudicating authority to decide the issue after the disp....