2000 (9) TMI 872

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 30-11-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed for not taking permission under Rule 173H of the Rules. 2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants is a small scale manufacturer and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 27-9-99 in response to the appellants' letter dated 13-10-98, granted permission under Rule 173H of Rules. Ld. Counsel submits that as the Commissioner granted the necessary permission under Rule 173H of the Rules on 27-9-99, the penalty imposed on the appellants is not sustainable. He, further, submits that the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that there was no mens rea inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellants were regularly submitting the D-3 intimations to the revenue. The appellants applied for necessary permission on 13-10-95 and when they had not received any response they again applied for the same on 28-8-98. On 3-10-98, the appellants made a representation to the Commissioner for grant of necessary permission and in this letter in para 9, the appellants made a specific mention abo....