2020 (3) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... L.V. Rao, Additional Commissioner/AR for the respondent ORDER PER: MR. ASHOK JINDAL 1. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, the matter was remanded by the Bench on 03.09.2007 to the adjudicating authority for re-computation of the duty liability in terms of Notification No. 65/88-Cus, dated 01.03.1988, which provides 40% effective rate of duty. 2. The f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iable for confiscation and benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, dated 01.03.1988 sought to be denied. Therefore, the appellants were liable to pay duty of Rs. 1,26,25,745/- and various penalties were also proposed. The matter was adjudicated and confirmed the confiscation of the impugned goods valued at Rs. 1,04,38,489/- as proposed in the show cause notice by denying the benefit of Notification....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was also imposed on the appellant. The appellant aggrieved from the order of imposing redemption fine, is in appeal before us. 3. None appeared on behalf of the on behalf of the appellant and no request for adjournment has been received. It is seen from the reports that the matter has gone several times before this Tribunal and this appeal is pending since 2009. Accordingly, the matter was taken....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion No. 65/88-Cus, dated 01.03.1988, which provides 40% effective rate of duty. (iv) The penalty on Shri B.K. Rao, Managing Director, is set aside and his appeal is allowed." 6. On going through order of the adjudicating authority, the earlier adjudication order was set aside and the matter was remanded back only for re-computation of duty liability in terms of Notification No. 65/88-Cus, dated....