9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for decision – Held that:- The matter relating to abatement claim was remanded by the Tribunal to the Commissioner Adjudication – there was no condition under Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, which provided that deposit of duty was the condition precedent for the claim of the abatement - levy of the penalty as also the demand of differential duty for the period during which the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi. 2. The Appeal has been admitted on the following question of law :- (i) Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of Differential Demand of duty and imposition of penalty when the Abatement Claims for the relevant period are lying as such for decision? 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :- The appellant is a manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was asked to pay differential duty. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 7-5-2002 had confirmed the demand of duty which has been upheld by the Commissioner Appeals. 4. In the meantime, the matter relating to abatement claim was remanded by the Tribunal to the Commissioner Adjudication. The appellant had already been allowed abatement of duty and this Court in the appeal preferred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. As this Court had held in Central Excise Appeal Defective No. 190 of 2006 decided on 26-7-2010 there is no pre-condition for depositing of duty for claiming abatement under Rule 96ZP, we are of the considered opinion that levy of the penalty as also the demand of differential duty for the period during which the appellant has been allowed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
