2003 (12) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rchana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Vide the impugned order, the authorities below have confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 29,59,520/- against the appellants and have imposed personal penalty of Rs. 16,72,700/- on the ground that during the period September, 1997 to January, 1999 and from Feb. 99 to March 99, the appellants have not discharged their duty liability in terms of the provisions of Rule 9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s not justified. For the above proposition, he relies upon the various decisions of the judicial as also quasi judicial authorities. 3. We have heard Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue. 4. Inasmuch as the appellant is not disputing the duty confirmation and interest, we uphold that portion of the order passed by the authorities below. As regards the penalty, we take note of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X