9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. In the present application, the appellants have prayed for modification of our Stay Order No. 148/2004, dated 15-3-2004. By the stay order, we had directed them to pre-deposit an amount of over Rs. 66 lakhs under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present application, the main ground raised by the appellants is that the relevant sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not appealed against. According to DR, the demand of duty of over Rs. 66 lakhs raised by the original and first appellate authorities cannot be questioned by the assessee as the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner under Rule 173G (1) is binding on them. 2. We have considered the submissions. We note that the Asstt. Commissioner had withdrawn the fortnightly facility from the appellants a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Counsel is forceful. Accordingly, we recall the earlier stay order and grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty and stay of recovery thereof. 3. As regards penalty, Counsel has submitted that the duty for the 2nd fortnight of May, 2001 was liable to be paid on or before 5-6-2001 in the fortnightly payment system. That duty was paid on 6-6-2001, the previous date (5-6-2001) being a holiday for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
