9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The notice issued to the appellant demanded duty of Rs. 3.72 crores approx. alleged to have been short levied on computers that it manufactured and cleared. It invoked the extended period of limitation. The Collector confirmed the demand for duty but felt that the facts did not justify imposition of penalty. The assessee appealed this order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the demand for duty of Rs. 434/- within the normal period but imposed a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs under Rule 173Q. 3. We find unusual in the Commissioner s order in imposing such a penalty. The special bench clearly held that the extended period of limitation would not apply and remanded the matter only for determining the duty payable for the normal period. The value of these goods on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e action of the Commissioner in imposing penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs appears to be a clear attempt to override the order of the Tribunal holding the extended period not applicable. 4. Having regard to these factors we do not consider that imposition of penalty is called for. The appellant does not question the liability to payment of duty of Rs. 434/-. 5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
