9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unil Kumar, DR, for the Appellant. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Heard the learned DR for the appellants. None present for the respondents though served. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 30-12-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ludhiana. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the appellants has been disposed of by modifying the order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the compounded levy scheme as described under Rule 97ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. Initially the annual duty liability of the respondents was fixed by the Commissioner at Rs. 24,31,356/- and the monthly duty liability to be Rs. 2,02,613/- under order dated 27-2-98. The respondents were expected to discharge their monthly duty liability by 10th of each month. The said duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and imposition of penalty on the ground that there was delay in payment of duty. The contention on behalf of the Department was accepted by the adjudicating authority under order dated 28-9-2004. The same however was set aside under the impugned order. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) while holding that there was no liability to pay interest or occasion to impose penalty has referred to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he required differential duty in terms of the provisional order was already deposited with the competent authority by the respondents in March 1999. Consequently, on 5-5-1999, the arrears of duty liability, if any, was on account of no fault of the assessee but entirely because there was no determination of such liability. In the absence of such determination of duty liability till 5-5-99, there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
