2013 (7) TMI 905

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: Ms. Praveena Gautam, Advocate. ORDER Having heard counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed:- Whether the order of the tribunal dated 24th July, 2011 is perverse as it does not discuss the relevant facts and give reasons for reducing the penalty to 25% or for directing that 25% of the penalty will be paid within 30 days of the receipt of the order? ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he said appeal, Excise Appeal No.1739 of 2010-SM, has been disposed of vide impugned order dated 24th July, 2011 in the following manner:-   Learned counsel fairly states that if at all duty demand shall sustain for the goods sent for use in rehabilitation of earthquake victims, there should not be harsh penalty. 2. Considering above submission, penalty is reduced to 25% of duty to be p....