TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 23-6-1995 to the extent that it does not impose penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding at the end of the month which according to the learned authorized representative for the department would be Rs. 62,796/- for the relevant period in respect of which the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand. 2. The respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntention to close the unit with effect from 1-10-1998. 5. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings on the ground that this was a case of closure of the unit and not a change in the installation of the capacity in the unit and that there was nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had manufactured the dutiable goods during the relevant period. 6. The Appellate Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, set-aside for the said period. If the date of receipt of the intimation is to be excluded, for the eleven days the amount works out to Rs. 62,796/- on the basis of pre-determination of monthly liability of Rs. 1,71,261/-. The appeal filed by the assessee against that order, appears to have been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, since the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of imposing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 406, and the Hon'ble High Court has, in paragraph 6 of the judgment, held that : "The penalty has to be imposed whenever the manufacturer fails to pay the amounts of duty of any month by the 10th of such month. This is a clear mandate of the fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules". It was also held in paragraph 7 of the judgment that:"...........