2004 (1) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. They have requested that matter may be decided on merits by taking into consideration their cross objections. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after going through the cross objections and hearing ld. JDR. 2. In this appeal the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order-in-original of the Assistant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned order, by relying upon the ratio of law laid down in Bhilai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781, has set aside the confiscation of the goods, redemption fine as well as penalty under Rule 173Q. He has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226. 4. In the cross objections the respondents have only alleged that the entire case h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has been overlooked by the Commissioner (Appeals). He has in my view wrongly applied the ratio of law laid down in the Bhilai Conductors case (supra). He has wrongly also converted the penalty under Rule 226, from Rule 173Q. He has even ignored the fact that even under Rule 226 also, confiscation of unaccounted goods has been provided. Therefore, while converting the penalty under said rule the ....