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

....llant. Shri Nimesh Mehta, Advocate, 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 ter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ferential duty demand, ordered payment of 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rior to the dates specified in sub-rule (3) 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 statutor....