9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, Member (J)]. - While arguing the stay applications, Shri P.R. Shah the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, points out that the impugned order is passed only under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-compliance with the stay order dated 9-2-1999 under which Rs 1.00 lac should be deposited towards penalty. He has cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty that can be imposable is only Rs 2000/-. He prays for setting aside the said order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the merits of the case, as he has already deposited the duty amount involved and he has a prima facie case both on facts and law. 2. Shri K.M. Patwari, the learned JDR fairly concedes the above submissions on going through the records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice only duty was demanded and not penalty. According to the appellant the duty was already paid in four instalments on 31-3-1997, 16-7-1997, 17-9-1997 and 26-11-1997 and the show cause notice is dated 1-8-1997. Apparently the duty liability discharged before the show cause notice. Rule 14A of the Rules deals with the failure to furnish proof of export within the specified period and the max ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
