9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, Rohtak v. M/s. J.R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (4) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] – Held that:- Neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) gave any option to the respondent - the Tribunal was justified in giving option to the respondent which was accepted by the respondent - Since the option has been extended to the appellant to pay 25% of the penalty along with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich case the penalty should stand restricted to 25% of the duty-amount by relying upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE C, Rohtak v. M/s. J.R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 209? 2. The brief facts are that the respondent M/s. Union Quality Plastics Ltd. Plot No. 204, GIDC, Umbergaon is engaged in the business of manufacturing of HDPE Wov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CESTAT Tribunal has recorded in its findings in para 11 as under : In view of the foregoing discussion, the demand of duty of Rs. 7,77,655/- is upheld along with imposition of penalty of identical amount. However, an option is extended to the appellant to pay 25% of the penalty along with interest and other dues, if any, within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order, in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
