9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Commissioner, bearing No. 188/Kol-II/2003 dated 21-11-2003. 1.2 Heard both sides. 1.3 The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellants were the manufacturer of Re-rolled Products and were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme. There was an Order of Provisional Determination of Duty Liability which was dated 20-10-97, applicable for the period from September, 1997 to March, 1998 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother penalty of Rs. 1,32,568.00 for the delayed payment of duty for the month of April, 1998. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order of the Original Authority. 2. Learned Consultant, Shri Amalendu Chakraborty appearing for the Appellants submits that they cannot be expected to know the enhanced final determination by the Commissioner and to pay the duty during the period from 1-9-97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rule 96ZP, has envisaged the determination of liability by the Commissioner and payment of dues by the assessee, as per the Order of Determination. It is not disputed that for the period from 1-9-97 to 31-3-98, the appellants have paid the duty as per the Order of Provisional Determination. Then the Order dated 31-3-98 finalized the duty liability on the enhanced rate, and as the appellants pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
