2015 (12) TMI 1754

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of M/s. Metro Electrical Ltd. against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has partially allowed the appeal filed before him by M/s. Pymen Cables (India) and appeals of other respondents were allowed in full. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent filed Misc. applications on the ground that appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable on various grounds. The learned counsel for the respondent also filed Misc. applications on the ground that in the impugned order Redemption fine of Rs. 1,82,392/- has been imposed on M/s. Metro but in appeal memo the amount of redemption fine has been mentioned as Rs. 2 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue is defective "which is required to be rejected. He also submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. Metro has also filed Misc. applications on the ground that in the impugned order Redemption fine has been imposed on M/s. Metro to the tune of Rs. 1,82,392/- but in appeal Memo, it is shown as Rs. 2,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 9,00,000/- is proposed to be imposed but there is no such proposal in the Review Order. 9. I have perused the Review order. On perusal of the Review order, I find that the Committee of Commissioners has directed that the appeals is to be filed against M/s. Metro recording the fact that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the Redemption Fine to Rs. 1,82,392/- and no proposal for imposing penalty on M/s. Metro but, in the Appeal Memo, the amount of Redemption Fine is shown as Rs. 2,00,000/- and penalty o....