2005 (2) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Anand and Sandeep Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has quashed the Imposition of penalty on the respondents under 96ZP(3)(ii) of the Rules. 2. We have heard both sides. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ropriate duty, the respondents are liable to pay the penalty under Rule 96ZP(3)(ii) of the rules and the Commissioner (Appeals) could not quash the same. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard cannot be sustained and deserves to be modified. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we accordingly impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X