2009 (5) TMI 516

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has been made effective from 1-5-1998 and in respect of the earlier period no penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) could be charged. There is thus no merit in this appeal as no substantive question of law warranting its admission would arise. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. - 32 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2009 - M.M. Kumar and H.S. Bhalla, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Shri Gurpreet S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 49,64,026/- under Rule 96ZO(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for delay of payment of duty in respect of the period 1998-99 and 1999-2000 after April, 1998. However, the Commissioner had dropped the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- for April, 1998 because the penal clause under Rule 96ZO(3) was introduced w.e.f. 1-5-1998 by notification dated 10-3-1998 as amended. The appeal of the deal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X