2009 (7) TMI 1327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant Department and none for the respondent. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 14.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. By the impugned order, the demand for interest and the imposition of penalty has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the duty amount was deposited prior to issuance of show cause notice. Undisputedly, there was delay in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... apparently disclose that there was no dispute that there was failure on the part of the respondent in the payment of excise duty when it was required to be paid. However, the amount of duty was paid prior to issuance of the show cause notice, alongwith part of the interest thereon. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) referring to the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE vs. Machino Montell r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been set aside by the Honble Punjab Haryana High Court, can not said to be a good law. 7. The provisions of law and the decision of the Apex Court in Dharamendra Textile Processors case being very clear on the issue involved in the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to set aside while restoring the order passed by the original authority. The appeal is accordingly al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X