9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07-SM (BR)) Shri V. Swaminathan, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri A. K. Rastogi, DR, for the respondent. [Order per P. K. Das, Member (Judicial)] - By Final Order No.1654/07-SM (BR) dated 14.11.2007, the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount from Rs.1,57,896/- to Rs.50,000/- and the appeal was otherwise rejected. The Appellant filed application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e lower side than the return filed by them with the Central Excise department. The appellant admitted the above mistake and deposited the amount along with interest. On proceedings being initiated against them, an equal amount of personal penalty was imposed upon them, which is under challenge." 2. The ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellant submits that they deposited the tax during 2004 for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate that the demand of tax barred by limitation is not sustainable. He further submits that the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 14.11.2008 after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the penalty. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the Applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice, which is not permissible under the law. 5. In view of the above discussion, I find that the Appellant deposited the tax voluntarily without any protest and, therefore, the submission of the ld. Advocate that the demand of tax is barred by limitation is not sustainable. 6. The above finding on limitation would be read with the Final Order No. 1654 of 2007-SM (BR) dated 14.11.2007. (Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
