K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

1. C.M.A(MD)No.469 of 2010 is filed against the Final Order No.550 of 2009 of CESTAT, dated 05.05.2009 read with Misc. Order No.179 of 2010, dated 8.3.2010 made in Appeal No.E/122-123/2009, on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.

2. C.M.A(MD)No.470 of 2010 is filed against the Final Order No.551 of 2009 of CESTAT, dated 05.05.2009 read with Misc. Order No.180 of 2010, dated 8.3.2010 made in Appeal No.E/122-123/2009, on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.

3. The appellant in both appeals is one and the same and an assessee with the Central Excise Department. The following are the facts and circumstances, which culminated into filing of these appeals by the assessee.

(i) The assessee engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, polyester yarn and polyester cotton blended yarn etc. Based on an information received that the assessee had indulged in unaccounted manufacture of fabrics of cotton etc., and clandestinely cleared them without payment of duty and indulged in clearance of grey fabrics in the guise of grey fabrics/loom-state fabrics, officers attached to Headquarters Preventive Unit of Madurai Central Excise Commissionerate visited the assessee's unit and conducted stock challenge of finished fabrics, stocked in the bonded Excise go-downs, Grey Ware House and Finished Ware House. Based on a prima facie and reasonable belief that excess quantities were kept for illicit removal without bringing them into RG+ stock, the Revenue seized those excess stocks under mahazars. Thereafter, the seized fabrics were released to the assessee provisionally on execution of General Bond for Rs.1,01,04,000/-(Rupees one crore one lakh and four thousand only) with security for Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen laksh only) in the form of Bank Guarantee. When the persons in charge of the Excise Go-downs etc., and those who were present during the time of stock challenge at the relevant places were asked to explain the reasons for the excess of fabrics seized and shortage of fabrics found during the stock taking, as recorded in the mahazars, an explanation was furnished by the assessee on 20.01.2001. Not being satisfied with the explanation tendered by the assessee, two show-cause notices were issued on 11.5.2001 and on 2.11.2001 calling upon the assessee to show-cause as to why the subject-matter fabrics referred to in the show-cause Notice No.30 of 2001 should not be confiscated and that the same should not be classified as grey fabrics under appropriate tariff entries for the purpose of levy of duties, as applicable and for imposing penalty under Rule 173 (Q) and as to why the duty of excise of Rs.1,25,60,718/-(Rupees one crore twenty five lakhs sixty thousand seven hundred and eighteen only) should not be demanded under rules 49 and 223-A of the Rules r/w Rule 8 of CER and Section 11A of CEA. Consequently, two orders in Original No.10 and No.11 were passed on 28.2.2006 by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the demand of duty, classifying the subject-matter fabrics as grey fabrics under appropriate tariff entries., imposing a penalty of Rs.75 lakhs, confiscating the subject-matter fabrics under Rule 173-Q, however by allowing the Petitioner to redeem the goods confiscated on payment of redemption fine of Rs.25 lakhs in lieu of confiscation, modifying to enforce a bank guarantee against the fine in lieu of confiscation and imposing a penalty of Rs.25 lakhs under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Challenging the said order, the assessee went on appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. By passing a final order on 06.09.2006, the Tribunal set aside those two orders in original, dated 28.02.2006 and allowed those appeals by way of remand thereby directing the Revenue to supply the copy of the letter, dated 20.01.2001 to the appellant and to pass a speaking