9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In Raghuvar (India) Limited's case [2000 (5) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Apex Court held that any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has the consequence of creation and destruction of rights and, therefore, must be specifically enacted and prescribed therefor. - CEA No. 4 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 23-5-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Jaspal Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 5.6.2013, Annexure A.3 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The respondent M/s Mohindra Iron and Steel Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh was working under Compounded Levy Scheme from March 1998 to March 2000 and opted to discharge its duty liability under Rule 96ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, the Rules ) read with section 3A of the Act which provides that where a manufacturer fails to pay the whole of the amount of duty payable for any month by the 10th day of such month, he shall be liable to pay the outstanding amount of duty alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the period from 11th day of such month till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount and a penalty equal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the appellant, the SLP against the said judgment is pending in the Apex Court. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (India) Limited, 2000(118) ELT 311 to contend that the penalty in the present case had been validly imposed as it was levied within reasonable time from the date when it came to the notice of the authority imposing the penalty. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s Hari Concast (P) Limited, CEA No.35 of 2007, decided on 20.4.2009, afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
