2000 (1) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Shri K.M. Patwari, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, Member (J)]. -  While arguing the stay applications, Shri P.R. Shah the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, points out that the impugned order is passed only under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-compliance with the stay order dated 9-2-1999 under which Rs 1.00 lac should ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Central Excise Rules, the maximum penalty that can be imposable is only Rs 2000/-. He prays for setting aside the said order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the merits of the case, as he has already deposited the duty amount involved and he has a prima facie case both on facts and law. 2. Shri K.M. Patwari, the learned JDR fairly concedes the abov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f of payment by 5-3-1999. As per the show cause notice only duty was demanded and not penalty. According to the appellant the duty was already paid in four instalments on 31-3-1997, 16-7-1997, 17-9-1997 and 26-11-1997 and the show cause notice is dated 1-8-1997. Apparently the duty liability discharged before the show cause notice. Rule 14A of the Rules deals with the failure to furnish proof of e....