9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bajaj, Member (J)]. In this appeal, the challenge has been made by the appellants to the impugned order in original dated 5-8-2003 vide which the adjudicating authority has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 7,11,469/- with equal amount of penalty. 2. The duty has been confirmed against the appellants on account of disallowance of their abatement claim for the periods 4-9-1998 to 14-9-1998, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Tribunal under Section 35F for having failed to comply with its stay order. 5. After the dismissal of the abatement claim of the appellants, the duty of the amount in question detailed above has been affirmed against the appellants as they did not pay the duty for the period for which they claimed abatement by alleging closure of their furnace ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
