2013 (7) TMI 826

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 96 ZP. The period of dispute is from September, 1997 to March, 2000 and in respect of this period, their monthly duty liability had been determined by the Commissioner as Rs.5,000/- which was required to be paid by stipulated date. During each month of the dispute, though the respondent discharged the monthly duty liability as determined by the department, but there was delay in payment of duty. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 8.2.2010 relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Concast Ltd. Reported in 2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H) set aside the penalty as in this judgement. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had held that though Rule 96 ZP (3) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i R.K. Mathur, ld. Departmental Representative, impugned order reiterating the grounds of appeal and emphasized that since in Rule 96ZO(3), there is no time limit for initiating penal proceedings, the impugned order setting aside the penalty in respect of period from April to May, 1999 is not sustainable. 4. I have considered the submissions of ld. Departmental Representative and have gone throug .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X