2007 (5) TMI 532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. BPS(321)89/2004 dated 16-9-2004, which upheld the order-in-original imposing penalty of Rs. 46,369/- against the appellant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. Since the issue is of 2004 I take up the appeal itself for disposal in the absence of the appellant. 3. Heard the ld. JDR. He reiterates the findings of the ld. Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... discharged 60% to 75% of duty liability within time and the balance duty liability was also discharged by them, subsequently, with interest. In view of the facts and circumstances, the imposition of penalty to the equal amount of duty outstanding, is uncalled for in this case. The Tribunal has been taking consistent view that if that if delay is of shorter period, in discharging the duty liability .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X