1993 (9) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ging the petitioners for having cleared dutiable goods like eye-brow pencils in the guise of kum-kum pencils or black pencils which are not dutiable. After considering the explanation and the materials available with the first respondent, the order was passed demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 1,47,10,803/-, a redemption fine in respect of the goods confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 35,00,000/- on the writ petitioner. This apart, penalties were also levied on the Directors individually. The petitioner filed five stay applications and also applications for waiver of the pre-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeals filed by them. In and by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 2-1-1993, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to deposit a s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Factory was found to be  [4][Rs.] 22,000/- gross. In other words it is pointed out that the correct calculation would only lead to a duty liability of Rs. 73,00,000/-. The argument on merits has been noticed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the case of the petitioners in juxtaposition with the arguments of the revenue wherein it was pointed out that for the period from 1-4-1986 to 3-12-1990 a proportional quantity of raw materials was arrived at and taken into consideration for the quantity of Eye-brow pencils produced during that period. While observing that the case involved multiplicity of facts and points of law and that the same can be gone into only at the time of the disposal of the case, the Tribunal proceeded to say ....