2006 (6) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -  Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue filed this  appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of MS girder, angles etc. With effect from 1-9-97, the respondents were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme and were paying duty as determined by the Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of duty, therefore, the respondents were liable to penalty, however, reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 1,55,000/-. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that as the appellants were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme and their factory was closed and restarted the production on 31-10-05, therefore, are liable to pay duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme up to 31-3-99 and should....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venue. In respect of imposition of penalty equal to the amount of duty paid after due date, the contention is that there was delay of only five days in deposit of duty. The adjudicating authority has discretion to impose lesser amount of penalty where the maximum penalty is prescribed. The appellant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP v. BHEL reported in 19....