1998 (6) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... C.P. Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. Application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs 9.24 lakhs under sub-rule (6) of Rule 57U; Rs 3.02 lakhs under Section 11AC imposed on the assessee; and penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs under Rule 209A imposed on its factory manager. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. Penalty was imposed on two grounds. The first .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t such depreciation was necessarily to be claimed after the end of the financial year, and that, when a statement was made by Manjunath, the factory manager on 11th October, 1996 admitting this, such a claim has not been made. The claim was in fact made by the applicant, in view of the commencement of proceedings on 26th November, 1996. It is also contended that in any event the provisions of Rule .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. The statement is therefore manifested with intention to avail both the benefits which is contrary to law. He contends that on the date on which notice was issued Rule 57U was inserted in the statute book and was therefore these provisions have been rightly invoked. He emphasises that the applicant on its own deposited the entire duty demand. 5. The question as to whether the difference in wei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X