2004 (6) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri A. Jayachandran, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - In the present application, the appellants have prayed for modification of our Stay Order No. 148/2004, dated 15-3-2004. By the stay order, we had directed them to pre-deposit an amount of over Rs. 66 lakhs under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present application, the main gro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom the date of receipt of the order, but this order was not appealed against. According to DR, the demand of duty of over Rs. 66 lakhs raised by the original and first appellate authorities cannot be questioned by the assessee as the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner under Rule 173G (1) is binding on them. 2. We have considered the submissions. We note that the Asstt. Commissioner ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s no demand of duty whatsoever. The present plea raised by the Counsel is forceful. Accordingly, we recall the earlier stay order and grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty and stay of recovery thereof. 3. As regards penalty, Counsel has submitted that the duty for the 2nd fortnight of May, 2001 was liable to be paid on or before 5-6-2001 in the fortnightly payment system. That duty was paid ....