[Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 07-09/Commr/LKO/2006-2007 dated 30-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

The main appellant is M/s. Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited (HSGPL). They are the manufacturers of pan masala and pan masala containing tobacco commonly known as Gutka. The above mentioned products are excisable. Shri Mahesh Singh is the Managing Director of HSGPL. All the excisable products manufactured by HSGPL were sold to the sole agent M/s Patel Brothers upto 1999. After 1999, the sole selling agent of HSGPL became M/s Anju Agencies, a proprietorship concern owned by Smt. Anju Singh. She is sister-in-law of Shri Mahesh Singh. The goods manufactured by HSGPL were sold to various dealers by sole selling agent M/s Anju Agencies after 1999. M/s Mahesh & Company is a trading firm whose proprietor is Shri Mahesh Singh who is also the Managing Director of HSGPL. M/s Mahesh & Company deals in supari & katha which are principal raw materials in manufacture of gutka/pan masala. M/s Gopal Grinding Industries processed the raw materials namely, supari, katha and cardamom etc. All the processed material is sent to HSGPL for use in the manufacture of pan masala and gutka. The proprietor of M/s Gopal Grinding Industries is Ms. Rajni Singh, the sister of Shri Mahesh Singh. Shri K.N. Singh is the father of Shri Mahesh Singh. He was manufacturing Harsingar brand pan masala and gutka prior to HSGPL’s coming into existence. He is the owner of brand name “Harsingar”. M/s Flex Industries Limited is manufacturers of packaging materials namely laminated ‘rolls, which are supplied to HSGPL. Shri A.P. Singh is the Senior General Manager of M/s Flex Industries Limited. Shri Anil Singh is Assistant General Manager (Commercial) and he is the authorized signatory of M/s Flex Industries Limited at Malanpur. M/s Rix Industries Limited, Faridabad had also supplied laminated rolls to HSGPL for some time. M/s. AVS Rotopack Pvt. Limited also manufactures and supplied laminated rolls to HSGPL. Shri Ambrish Chaurasia is the Director of this firm. M/s. Indian Wood Product Limited, Bareilly are manufacture of katha. They supplied katha to HSGPL. Shri R.K. Agarwal is the Manager Finance in this company. Ms Awadh Wood Product are partnership firm manufacturing katha. Shri Rajender Kumar Maheswari is the partner in this firm. S/Shri Ashwini Kumar Sharma and Rakesh Kumar is the Accountant in this factory.

3. The Central Excise department received information regarding huge evasion of duty by HSGPL. The informer provided copies of 56 invoices. 18 invoices issued by M/s Anju Agencies and M/s Patel Brothers and copies of few challans of M/s Gopal Grinding Industries issued for delivery of ground materials to HSGPL were collected from the Trade Tax Department. Very elaborate investigations have been carried out by the department. The Central Excise Officers conducted raids on 4-7-2001/5-7-2001 at the factory premises of HSGPL, M/s Anju Agencies, M/s Gopal Grinding Agencies, M/s Mahesh & Company and M/s Sanathan Cold Storage and at the premises of various dealers of Harsingar brand pan masala/gutka. Records were scrutinized and the physical stock of raw materials and finished goods was undertaken. Various irregularities were noticed. The computers of HSGPL, M/s Patel Brothers, M/s Anju Agencies, M/s Gopal Grinding Industries and M/s Mahesh & Company were seized. With the help of software experts, M/s Stellar Information Systems Limited, New Delhi, data relating to production and clearance of excisable material were retrieved. Statements of various persons were recorded. In the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has decided the points arising out of the following show cause notices :-

(i)      Show cause notice No. IV-CE (9)CP/34/2001.PT.II dt. 31-1-2003 demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 1,38,52,90,875/- from HSGPL for alleged removal of pan masala gutka without payment of duty. Penalties under Rule 209A/26 of Central Excise Rules was proposed against 50 other commercial concerns/persons who abetted the clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods by HSGPL.

(ii)    Show cause Notice No. IV-CE(9)CP/34/201/9793-9812 dt. 26-6-2002 demanding duty of Rs. 12.90 lacs on seized goods.

(iii)   Show cause notice No. IV-CE(9)CP/34/2001/Pt.II/16444 dated 11-12-2002 proposing confiscation of the vehicles allegedly used in transport of illegally cleared goods. Penal provisions were invoked for 13 notices comprising of vehicle owners and Drivers of vehicle used in the alleged clandestine transportation of pan masala/gutka. The adjudicating authority has decided all the issues arising out of the above mentioned show cause notices in the impugned order.

4. In terms of the impugned order, the demand of duty from HSGPL is Rs. 1,37,63,64,527/- only. Equal penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 has been imposed. A penalty of Rs. 10 crore has been imposed on Shri Mahesh Singh, Managing Director of HSGPL under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001. Further penalty of Rs. 2.5 crore has been imposed on Shri Mahesh Singh as Proprietor of M/s Mahesh & Company under Rule 209A/Rule 26A of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. Penalties have been imposed on the other noticees also.

5. The appellants concerned have filed applications for stay of recovery of dues demanded in terms of the impugned order.

6. Shri T.R. Rastogi, the learned special Counsel appeared for the Revenue. S/Shri S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Advocate and K.K. Anand, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the following appellants :-

(i)      M/s Harsingar Gutkha (P) Ltd.,

(ii)    Sh. Mahesh Singh

6.1 Shri Prem Ranjan, the learned Advocate appeared for the following appellants.

(i)         Sh. Rajnish Tiwari, Manager, Anju Agencies

(ii)       Sh. Ajay Pandey, Manager & Computer Operator of M/s Gopal Grinding Industries.

(iii)      Sh. Ashish Kumar Mishra, Supervisor, M/s. Gopal Grinding Industries,

(iv)      Sh. Amit Srivastava, Accounts Assistant M/s. Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(v)        Anjani Kumar, Computer Operator, M/s Mahesh & Co.

(vi)      Mr. Kamal Kumar Jain, Dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(vii)     Sh. Surendra Kumar Sethi, Prop. of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(viii)    Sh. Sudhir Chand Gupta, Dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(ix)      Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, M/s Omar Agencies dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(x)        Sh. Rama Shankar M/s Sri Durga Bhandar, dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(xi)      Sh. Ramesh Chand Jaiswal, M/s Jaiswal Stores, dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(xii)     Sh. Deepak Kumar, M/s Deepak Agency, dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(xiii)    Sh. Raja Ram Gupta, M/s Gupta Trading Co., dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(xiv)    Sh. Shiv Kumar Agarwal, M/s Aggarwal Traders, dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(xv)     Madhur Mohan, M/s Madhur Mohan Arun Kumar, dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(xvi)    Ram Pal Jaiswal, dealer of M/s Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

(xvii)   Amitabh Chaurasia, Prop, of Sri Ram Trading Co. dealer of M/s. Harsinghar Gutka Pvt. Limited

6.2 S/Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate and Sh. AtuI Gupta, CA, appeared for the following appellants.

(i)      M/s. Awadh Wood Products

(ii)    Shri Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari, Partner of M/s Awadh Wood Products.

6.3 Shri Anurag Mishra, the learned Advocate appeared for the following appellants.

(i)      M/s AVS Rotopack Pvt. Ltd.,

(ii)    Sh. Ambrish Kumar Chaurasia.

6.4 Shri Kapil Vaish, Chartered Accountant, appeared for the following appellants.

(i)      M/s. Indian Wood Products Ltd.

(ii)    Sh. R.K. Agarwal, employee of M/s. Indian Wood Products Ltd.

6.5 Shri R.K. Hasija, Advocate for M/s. Lakshmikiamaran & Sridharan appeared on behalf of the following appellants.

(i)      M/s. Flex Industries Limited

(ii)    Sh. Ashok Chaturvedi

(iii)   Sh. A.P. Singh

(iv)   Sh.. Anil Sharma

(v)     Sh. Rajeev Sharma

(vi)   M/s. Pitambhare Freight Carriers

(vii)  Sh. Bal Kishan Sahu

7. We heard elaborately S/Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Sr. Advocate and K.K. Anand, leaned Advocate who represented the main appellants. We heard the Advocates representing the other appellants on whom penalties have been imposed in the impugned order. Shri T.R. Rastogi, learned special Counsel argued for the Revenue. The impugned order confirms a very huge demand of Rs. 137.64 crores on the main appellants M/s HSGPL. This amount consists of several demands. Out of the above demand, the major portion is of the order of Rs. 63.97 crores. The adjudicating authority has dealt with this portion of the demand in pages 104 to 114 of the adjudication order. Out of the huge demand of Rs. 63.97 crores, a demand of Rs. 85.77 lacs is based on 74 invoices of M/s Patel Brothers and M/s. Anju Agencies, which were provided by the informer and the Trade tax department has already mentioned. The remaining portion of the huge demand is based on reconstruction of deleted data in the hard disk of CPU of M/s. Anju Agencies. Learned Sr. Counsel expressed very serious doubts on the reliability of this evidence and also the authenticity of the data reconstructed from hard disk of CPU of M/s Anju Agencies for the period from 1998-99 to 2001-2002. The reconstructed invoices are 4557 in numbers. Wherever a quantity of 1 to 5 bags are shown in the reconstructed invoices, the adjudicating authority has held that that number should be 70 based on the statements of some of the persons involved. This is seriously contested by the learned Counsel for the main appellant. The learned special Counsel for the Revenue took us through the various statements recorded by the Revenue to contend that there is clear evidence of manipulation of invoices and clearance of meager quantities of finished product have been deliberately shown to avoid the Central Excise duty. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that in respect of the reconstructed data leading to the demand of Rs. 63.97 crores, no enquiry was made from any of the buyers of M/s. Anju Agencies and M/s Patel Brothers. Even though, the particulars of the dealers with whom the two agencies were having dealings are available to the department, no enquiry was made. Their statements were recorded only with regard to 72 invoices. The reconstructed data were from the computers seized from M/s. Anju Agencies and M/s Patel Brothers and not from the main appellant M/s. HSGPL. There is no mention either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order that the quantity involving the huge demand of Rs. 63.97 crores was purchased by whom who were the buyers, how they paid for the goods, how such huge amount of cash was received by M/s. Anju Agencies or M/s Patel Brothers. There is absolutely no basis or material or evidence of any nature whatsoever to assume 70 bags per invoices and calculated the duty liability in all those cases were the invoices indicated one to five bags.

8. Another demand of Rs. 30.31 crore has been made based on reconstruction of old deleted destroyed data from the computer hard disk seized from the premises of M/s. HSGPL, M/s. Anju Agencies, M/s. Gopal Grinding Industries, M/s Mahesh & Co. and M/s. Sanathan Cold Storage on 4-7-2001. The department has taken the help of M/s. Steller Information Systems Limited for retrieval of deleted data. The learned Counsel for the main appellant expressed very serious doubts about the authenticity of the retrieved data. He urged that the procedure adopted for seizure of the computers and their sealing was defective. When a paper seal was suffixed to the seized computers no distinguishing identification marking was suffixed on the paper seal. Whenever the paper seal was removed, there is no mention in the panchnama about the preservation or disposal of the removed paper seal. It was contended that there is always a possibility that the computer data can be tampered with. The reconstructed documents are christened as R-documents. The computer seized from the appellant was lying with the department unsealed and any expert in computer operation could do any manipulation within a few minutes. A search in the factory premises of HSGPL was conducted on 4-7-2001. There is no mention in the search panchnama about the seized personal computer having been sealed at the time of its seizure on 4-7-2001. There is also no statement recorded from S/Shri Mukesh Bajpai, Amit Srivastava, S.K. Dixit, Kanit Prasad to the effect that the said computer have been seized at the time of its seizure on 4-7-2001. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that if at all the so-called R-documents are to be relied upon as alleged by the department absolutely there is nothing to show that how the sale proceeds of such huge sales running into hundred of crores of rupees were received or accounted for.

9. The learned Sr. Counsel raised a legal issue on the admissibility of the R-documents and reconstructed data from the computer in the light of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The fact that the huge demands are made on the basis of the reconstructed R-documents is not in dispute. In terms of Section 36B(1), a computer print out can be admissible only if the conditions mentioned in Section 36B(2) and other provisions of Section 36B are satisfied in relation to the computer print out as well as in relation to the computer in question. Sub-section (2) of Section 36B is reproduced below :-

“The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer print out shall be the following, namely :-

(a) the computer print out containing the statement was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;

(b) during the said period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities, information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;

(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of the contents; and

(d) the information contained in the statement reproduced or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities”.

10. The short point is that a computer print out would be admissible in evidence, only if the said print out was produced by the computer during the period over which it was used regularly to store or process information. In other words, the important point is that the print out should have been produced when the computer was in regular operation. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the print out or the R-documents is a reconstructed data and obviously it was not produced during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information. A demand based on the reconstructed or retrieved data will not satisfy Section 36B(2) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and prima facie such demand is not sustainable.

11. The learned Counsel for the Revenue made the point that in a case like this, mathematical precision is impossible to achieve in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme court’s decision in the case of CC, Madras v. D. Bhoormull reported in (S.C.). He stated that the impugned goods are actually demerit goods and have been banned by several State Governments. Since the rate of duty is quite high, the commodity is prone to evasion. The appellant is working under self-removal procedure. They are having great responsibility and in view of the trust reposed by the Government on the assessee they should have followed all the Central Excise procedure in clearing the goods on payment of Central Excise duty and following all the statutory provisions. He stated that the kingpin of the entire operation is Shri Mahesh Singh who is the Managing Director of the appellant unit HSGPL. He is also the proprietor of M/s Mahesh & Company which supplies supari to the appellant company. The sole selling agent M/s. Anju Agencies is owned by Ms. Anju Singh who is sister-in-law and Shri Mahesh Singh. M/s Gopal Grinding Industries is owned by Smt. Rajni Singh, sister of Shri Mahesh Singh. He took us through the statements of various persons to show that the entire affair was managed by Shri Mahesh Singh only. He emphasised the point that the entire case is based on facts and not simply on statements only. He took us through the statements of Shri Rajneesh Tiwari, Manager of M/s Anju Agencies which indicated the modus operandi of manipulation of data in the computer and destroying the invoices after clearance of goods. He read out the following extract from the statement of Shri Rajneesh Tiwari.

“On return of vehicles of delivery of goods in the evening, the driver returns the second copy of the invoices to me. If the party receives one copy of the invoice, it is presumed that it is a bill and I don’t delete it from the computer. If the driver returns both the copies of invoices to me then after tearing them, I enter lesser quantity of material in the computer. The act of preparing such invoices entering lesser quantity and deletion of the entries in the computer is done only on the instruction from Mr. K.N. Singh Patel. Total quantity of the material is always delivered to the party but only an invoice of one bag is kept in the records and the transportation copies destroyed and the original transportation invoice is deleted from the hard disk of computers computer of M/s Harsingar & Anju Agencies’’.

12. Shri Rastogi, learned Counsel for the Revenue took us through the statements of S/Shri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Sh. S.S. Bajpai, Kumari Rajni Patel etc., and urged that the entire thing should be viewed in totality to arrive at the proper conclusion. He further drew our attention to the statement of Shri Mahesh Singh and stated that with regard to incriminating statements made by others, Shri Mahesh Singh accepted the facts and therefore, there is very clear admission of evasion of duty.

13. The learned Counsel for the Revenue invited our attention to 32 loose sheets covering the period from 16-5-2001 to 31-5-2001 and said that the factory normally worked in two shifts. He also invited our attention to the statement of Shri Pandey, Supervisor. He said that the Commissioner has arrived at the production involving duty of Rs. 88 crores if the factory worked for two shifts during the period in question. In any case, the learned Counsel for the Revenue maintained that the duty evasion for the relevant period in question cannot be less than Rs. 60 crores. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the main appellant contested the working of the factory in two shifts for the entire period. In this connection he invited our attention to the study conducted by National Productivity Council according to which only 72 pouches per machine per minute can be completed. In all, there were 54 machines but these machines were functioning for the entire period in question. The appellants maintained that for one shift, the maximum duty liability would be Rs. 20 crores and for two shifts, it would be Rs. 40 crores.

14. It has already been mentioned that M/s Mahesh & Company supplied supari to the appellant company HSGPL. Based on the reconstructed/retrieved data of computer of M/s. Mahesh & Company, a demand of Rs. 22.43 crores has been made. The adjudicating authority has dealt with this issue at pages 203 to 230 of the Order in Original. From the reconstructed data, it is seen that M/s Mahesh & Company made cash sales of uncut supari of Red variety. It was presumed that all the supari sold on cash basis should have gone to HSGPL only and on this quantity it has been presumed that the appellant could have manufactured gutka/pan masala and cleared without payment of duty. The appellants strongly contended the correctness of the conclusion of the adjudicating authority. However, according to the Revenue, M/s. Mahesh & Company and the appellant company are both controlled by Mr. Mahesh Singh and therefore, the inference that the quantity of cash sales of M/s Mahesh & Company would have been used to manufacture gutka is a reasonable conclusion. We find that this demand of Rs. 22.43 crores based on the reconstructed data of the computer of M/s Mahesh & Company is also hit by the condition of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act.

15. There is another huge demand to the tune of Rs. 18.19 crores. Out of this demand, the major portion is based on the reconstructed data of hard disc of the CPU of M/s Gopal Grinding Industries. M/s. Gopal Grinding Industries was cutting supari and sending the same to HSGPL. It is contended by the appellant that there is nothing to show from whom alleged quantities were purchased and who paid for it and how it was paid. There were no details of any payments made to supplier of supari. Moreover, documents were not of the appellants and there is nothing to show any delivery to the appellant. As the major portion of the above demand is based on reconstructed computer data, this demand is also hit by the non fulfillment of conditions of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Another point made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the entire demand of Rs. 137 crores consists of multiplicity of demands on the same clearance. It is argued that the main raw material, for the manufacture of pan and gutka is supari. Therefore, if there is a demand based on the sales by M/s Mahesh & Company of supari to the appellants, then there cannot be another demand based on the records of M/s. Gopal Grinding Industries because only uncut supari is purchased from M/s. Mahesh & Company and this supari is sent to M/s. Gopal Grinding Industries for cutting. Therefore, any demand based on the records of M/s. Gopal Grinding Industries would already be contained in the demand of duty based on the supari received from M/s Mahesh & Company.

16. Learned Senior Counsel urged the point that for manufacture of excisable product with duty liability of Rs. 137 crores, a huge amount of raw materials like supari, katha, tobacco, cardamom, lime, menthol, perfume etc. are required. For example, for gutka, tobacco is required and for manufacture of gutka involving duty of Rs. 137.76 crores, requirement of tobacco would be Rs. 13.76 lacs. Similarly, requirement of cardamom would be 4.91 kgs. and requirement of kattha would be 19.46 lacs kgs. The department has not adduced any evidence to show receipt of huge quantities of raw materials. Moreover, for procuring such raw materials, enormous amount of money is needed and there is no evidence of payment of amounts for procuring such raw materials. The capacity of the appellant was also disputed both by the Revenue and the appellant. There is no evidence of the buyers of the finished product. Further, no evidence has been adduced for receipt of huge amount from the buyers. It was pointed out that the share capital and reserves aggregate to about Rs. 82 lacs. The annual net profit is of the order of Rs. 15 to 20 lacs.

17. The demand confirmed by the Commissioner is 335 times of the appellants total paid up share capital and reserves. Moreover, the demand of duty is about 34 times the duty annually paid by the appellant. It was pleaded that the appellant is a small private limited company with limited finances, reserves and infrastructure. It was urged that the appellants’ financial position is such that even if all its fixed assets and current assets are sold out after paying the debt, it would hardly be this sum of about Rs. 80 lacs and it would cost extreme financial hardship to pay such huge demand raised by the adjudicating authority. Further, it was pointed out that during the investigation, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1 crore and this should be taken into account while deciding the. issue. The learned Senior Advocate stated that financial hardship is relevant factor while deciding the matter relating to requirement of pre-deposit cr disputed demand. The following case laws were relied upon :-

(i) (S.C.) - Pamwi Tissues Ltd. v. CCE

(ii) - Sapthagiri Cements Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT, Bangalore - A.P. High Court

(iii) - Ramakrishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - Delhi, High Court

(iv) - Micro Village Communications Pvt. Ltd v. CC, CESTAT.

18. The learned special Counsel for the department pointed out that in a case like this it is difficult to attain mathematical precision. He said that the retrieved data contained in the R-document cannot be dismissed as the department has employed the services of renowned company in retrieving the data and its credibility cannot be just ignored. He said that the statements of various persons coupled with the reconstructed data clearly indicate huge evasion and in terms of recently decided case by the larger bench the appellant is liable mandatory for equal penalty. He cited case laws to show that in a case like this it is not necessary to provide evidence for the receipt of each raw material. He cited many case laws to show that the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 209A.

19. We find that duty of the huge demand of Rs. 137.63 crores, a major portion to the tune of approximately Rs. 135 crores is based on the reconstructed/retrieved data from the computers. The demand based on 74 invoices is only Rs. 85.77 lakhs. The appellants have also pleaded financial hardship. The appellants had raised a legal issue to hold that the condition in Section 36B has not been fulfilled in respect of the retrieved computer printout and therefore, the same would not be admissible in evidence. Prima-facie, this contention of the appellant appears to be correct. Moreover, there is force in the contention of the appellants that the demands have been multiplied. No evidence has been produced for the receipt of huge quantity of raw materials required for production and clearance of Gutka/Panmasala involving duty of Rs. 137 crores. No investigation regarding finances required for such huge turnover has been done. There is no evidence of any seizure of cash. The production capacity is also a contentious issue. All these issues have to be examined only at the time of regular hearing. Presently, no definite finding regarding alleged evasion can be given. At this stage, it is very difficult to come to a definite conclusion regarding the extent of evasion. No doubt statements of various persons indicate like-hood of clearance without payment of duty. But at the same time, the legal contention raised by the appellants regarding the admissibility of R-documents in the light of Section 36B cannot be dismissed without proper reasons. Moreover, the appellants had already paid Rs. 1/- crore during investigation. During the period in dispute, they had discharged duty liability to the tune of Rs. 8/- crores. The amount of Rs. 1/- crore already deposited may be treated as pre-deposit. We order waiver of balance of duty and penalties. The penalties in respect of all the appellants are waived in full till the disposal of the appeal as their role can be properly examined only at the time of regular hearing. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the case be heard without ordering any further deposit of duty and penalties. As the amount involved in the impugned order is huge, the case may be listed for hearing in the first week of January 2008. It is needless to say that the recovery of the balance of duty and penalty is stayed till the disposal of the appeals.

(Pronounced on 7-11-2007)