9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This matter does not figure in today s hearing list before this Bench. It has been mentioned by the appellants Counsel, who submits that a demand notice dated 19-7-2004 has been issued to them by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-V Division. Counsel prays for extension of stay of recovery of the amount of penalty. I have heard the DR also. 2. Counsel s prayer is contained in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the operation of the stay order passed by the Division Bench. 3. It appears to me from the available records and the submissions that the limited issue involved in the appeal is whether any penalty was liable to be imposed on the appellants under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the facts and circumstances of the case and, if so, to what extent. The amount of penalty imposed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the circumstances, any further recovery by the department as proposed in the demand notice dated 19-7-2004 is bound to put the assessee to undue hardships. It appears from the tenor of the demand notice that the department is bent on enforcing it expeditiously. There being no Division Bench sitting during this week, it is necessary for the ends of justice to give interim relief to the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
