2006 (3) TMI 570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent. [Order]. -  The issue involved in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty from amount equivalent to duty to Rs. 5,000/-, which is against the provisions of Rule 96ZP(3). He has relied on the Tribunal's decision cited by the respondents in the following cases :- (i)      Supertik Industries v. CCE, Bangalore - 2002 (147)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the period from the 16th day of such month till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount; and (ii)     a penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding from him at the end of such month or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater." The learned SDR, therefore, submitted that the appellants are bounded under Rule 96ZP(3) to pay the penalty, which was equival....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....get precedence over to the Tribunal's decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order, therefore, needs to be set aside and order-in-original be restored. 4. None appeared for the respondents in spite of notice. 5. I find considerable force in the plea made by the learned SDR. I also find that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has clearly held that the penalty referred....