2004 (10) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....agmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Heard both sides. 2. The contention of the Revenue is that under Rule 96ZQ(3), the respondents were required to pay 50% of the duty payable for the calendar month by 15th of the month and remaining amount at the end of the month. The respondents had failed to discharge duty liability of Rs. 4,00,000/- payable for the fort....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dia - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 28 (Mad.) and Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.). He stated that Madras High Court's decision is exactly on the particular point and High Court has held that penalty mentioned in the above said rule should be taken as only the maximum amount which was levied and the assessing authority has....