2004 (10) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... None, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 96/2004 dated 27-2-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty against M/s. Star Enterprises. 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents in spite of notice being sent to them. However, they have su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provisional basis; that the Respondents also opted to avail the payment of duty under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 97ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that as per the said Sub-rule the manufacturer was required to pay the duty by the 10th of each month; that they had paid the duty short by Rs. 1,44,956/- for the period April, 98 to March, 99; that accordingly the Dy. Commissioner under Order-in-Origin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f duty within the stipulated period; that it has been held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (Allahabad) that the penalty equivalent to the amount of duty short paid by them is imposable on the Respondents. 3. The Respondents have submitted in their Cross Objection that non-payment of duty under provisional order and it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y and fixing the duty liability does not mean that the assessment was provisional as provided under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is also not on record that the provisional order determining their duty liability was challenged by the Respondents. Accordingly they were liable to discharge the duty liability as per the said order. Fourth proviso to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZP of the Ce....