2006 (10) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The brief facts of the case are that the annual capacity of production of the respondents who are processor of textile fabrics which have been specified under Notification No. 41/98-C.E., dated 10-12-1998 as notified goods on which duty liability was required to be discharged in terms of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Ru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f interest of Rs. 2,905/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 35,483/- equal to the differential duty amount, by his order dated 31-7-2000. By another order dated 8-8-2000 a demand of Rs. 3, 22,581/- for 8 days - 24-3-1999 to 31-3-1999 - consequent upon installation of new stenter on 24-3-1999 was confirmed together with interest and equal penalty was imposed by the Additional Commissioner. The assessee fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) of Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944, without which the appellant cannot fulfil the said conditions. Therefore, the impugned order by the adjudicating authority imposing penalty under sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ is patently erroneous and illegal. As the appellant cannot be made to suffer on account of a mistake or inaction on the part of the statutory authorities as held in the case of Asian....