9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - Both the stay applications arise a common question of law and hence they are taken up together for the disposal. Stay Application No. 190/2006 in Appeal No. 314/2006 : 2. The appellant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount of ₹ 38,00,000/- and further penalties imposed in the Revisional Order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Counsel relies on the following rulings in support of their plea that the penalty is not leviable :- (i) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE [2003 (161) E.L.T. 285] which has been affirmed by the Apex Court reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.)] (ii) CCE Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries [2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar.)] (iii) CCE, Delhi v. Machino Montell (I) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of ₹ 18,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, besides penalty of ₹ 200/- per day under Section 76 of the Act. The issue is identical one as decided in the above matter. Hence the stay application is allowed by granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amount and staying its recovery till the disposal of the appeal. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
