2006 (2) TMI 561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This appeal arises before us pursuant to the order dated 19-12-2005 of the Hon ble High Court directing us to dispose of the appeal on merits. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel products (Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the CETA). During the period of dispute (February to December, 1999), t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Final Order No. 567/2002, dated 10-5-2002 and accordingly the assessee is liable to pay duty of Rs. 33,27,334/-. We are told that there is no appeal against the said Final Order, which has since become final. However, it is said, the party is yet to honour the demand of duty. 2. As and when the stay order of the Hon ble Supreme Court expired, the penalty-related dispute was revived and the same .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... x Court s judgment (supra) is applicable to penalties under Rule 96ZO(3) and Rule 96ZP(3). It has been held that a certain amount of discretion is in-built in these penal provisions. Accordingly, it is open to a quasi-judicial authority to impose a lesser penalty than the maximum on a defaulting assessee under the compounded levy scheme. In the instant case, the penalty imposed by the lower author .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X