9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 96/2004 dated 27-2-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty against M/s. Star Enterprises. 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents in spite of notice being sent to them. However, they have submitted Cross Objection. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents also opted to avail the payment of duty under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 97ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that as per the said Sub-rule the manufacturer was required to pay the duty by the 10th of each month; that they had paid the duty short by Rs. 1,44,956/- for the period April, 98 to March, 99; that accordingly the Dy. Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 253/2000 dated 30-10-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod; that it has been held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (Allahabad) that the penalty equivalent to the amount of duty short paid by them is imposable on the Respondents. 3. The Respondents have submitted in their Cross Objection that non-payment of duty under provisional order and its recovery is not related to final d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ean that the assessment was provisional as provided under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is also not on record that the provisional order determining their duty liability was challenged by the Respondents. Accordingly they were liable to discharge the duty liability as per the said order. Fourth proviso to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 clearly provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
