TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Shri Raghavendra Advocate - For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per : B. Ravichandran These three appeals are against common impugned order dated 25.05.2006 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. We note that this is the third round of litigation in the present matter. The impugned order was passed as per the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity after allowing discount allowed to the dealers and considering the submissions for cum duty value. The penalties imposed in the second round adjudication which was higher than the original adjudication was set aside with a direction that the Commissioner is at liberty to impose penalties on all the appellants after determining the duty liability in the present matter. The present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Rules 1944. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the main party did not file appeal as all the records were taken over by Revenue and they could not prepare any appeal in the absence of these papers. The company also is no more functional and it has closed down for many years. He mainly pleaded for setting aside the penalties on these three appellants. He s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit etc and hence the penalty against them cannot be fully set aside. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. In the impugned order we note there is no discussion regarding the background or reason for imposition of penalty. Apparently the impugned order restricted the scope of decision with reference to the direction issued by the Tribunal on valuation issue. Howev....