TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alued at Rs. 20,28,840/- on 15-05-2003. On investigation, it was found that the seized fabrics belong to Shri Harish G. Bulchandani, importer and director of M/s. Warren Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Suri Exports Pvt. Ltd. The department was informed by both the companies vide a letter dated 12-09-2003 that the said goods were imported against Bill of Entry No. 563545 dated 04-12-2002 and 568970 dated 18-02-2003 and submitted copies of said Bills of Entry. Investigating Agency drawn the sample from the seized goods and got it tested and chemically examined. As per the report, the goods seized and imported under said Bills of Entry are not matching. Show cause notice was issued proposing the confiscation of the seized goods and also penalty on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal has directed to decide only the penalty imposed upon the appellant. There is no dispute that the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was on the issue of confiscation, redemption fine as well as penalty. The appeal filed before the Tribunal also was challenging all the issues and not only penalty. He also submits that the appellant has not conceded at any stage to give up the issues of confiscation. The Ld. Commissioner only on going with the Tribunals order which mentioned issue involved in this case on personal penalty taken a view, that in remand proceeding, the only issue decided by him, is of penalty. He submits that this mention in the order was in context with the stay application, only for the reason that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpex vs. Union of India - 2002(140) ELT 3 (SC) (ii) Commr. of Customs, Bangalore vs. MD. Yaseen -2010(255) ELT 50 (Kar.) 6. On the other hand, Shri D.K. Sinha, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as per the earlier Tribunal's remand order, the Tribunal observed that the only issue involved in personal penalty on the appellant. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the matter only in respect of personal penalty and not decided the confiscation redemption fine etc. He submits that there is no infirmity in the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)s order as he only complied with the observation taken by this Tribunal in the remand order. 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. Since the appeal has been dismissed only on the time bar, I am unable to go into the merit of the case. As such the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order on merit. He shall pass a fresh order within 4 weeks from receipt of this order. Further I order that the appellant should pay Rs. 5000/- as costs and produce proof of the same before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who, on production of such proof, shall hear and dispose the appeal on merits." As per the above para 3 of the order, it can be seen that in the stay application the issue involved w....