2006 (2) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eena, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant is a manufacturer of MS ingots and was working under compounded levy scheme during the period September, 1997 to March, 2000. Under the present order, duty demand of over Rs. 1,20,965/- and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant did not discharged full duty liability due in 1997-98 and 1998-99. 2. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Ludhiana. This communication states that the Commissioner has rejected the abatement claim of the party for the period 2-12-1997 to 9-12-1997 for not fulfilling the conditions under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The message also requires AC Ludhiana to inform the party accordingly. However, no communication informing the appellant is available in the file. From this, it would appear ....