9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal filed by the Revenue is against the impugned order setting aside the penalty of Rs. 100/- imposed on the respondents by the concerned Assistant Collector of Central Excise for non-submission of RT 12 returns for the month of July 1989. The impugned order while giving a direction as above for setting aside the penalty of Rs. 100/- has relied upon its earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 130/Cal.-I/90, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he RT 12 returns for the manufacture of the goods on July 1989 which has led to imposition of fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. Ld. JDR, Shri S.N. Ghosh has submitted that the filing of revised classification list on nil rate of duty and stopping of RT 12 returns on their own by the respondents was not correct and, therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed by the Assistant Collector concerned. From that vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1990 had held that the impugned product was liable to nil rate of duty under sub-heading 3003.20. In that view, RT 12 returns was not required to be filed. This order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) still holds the field and there is no subsequent stay order of the said order-in-appeal. In that view of the matter, the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order was justified in setting a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
