2012 (9) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-  The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of the appellate Tribunal [2008 (226) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal)], which held that redemption fine could be imposed only in respect of goods seized but not held liable for confiscation. 2. The Commissioner had imposed redemption fine of Rs. 24,00,000.00 on the quantity of 19520.36 sq. mts. of vitrified tiles under Section 125 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 11094.60 sq. mtrs. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. In order to levy redemption fine, two condition are to be satisfied : (i) the goods should have been seized, (ii) the goods should be liable for confiscation. Admittedly, 19520.36 sq. mts. of vitrified tiles were not seized, much less rele....