9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order]. The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty of Rs. 93,025.00 under Rule 96ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants were liable to discharge their duty liability of Rs. 93,025.00 within 10th March 1999. In this instant case, the appellant discharged their duty liability on 12th March 1999 along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay interest on the outstanding amount of duty as on 10th day of such month. He submits that the adjudicating authority rightly imposed penalty on the outstanding amount of duty as on 10th day of such months. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find force in the submission of the learned advocate. For the proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be liable to pay penalty on the amount of duty outstanding from him at the end of such month. Thus, the liability to pay of penalty is on the amount of duty outstanding from the manufacturer at the end of such month. In the present case, it is seen there is no outstanding of duty from the appellant at the end of such month, as the appellant discharged the duty liability on 12th of such mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
