2010 (8) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alasubramanian, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order].  - These two appeals by the department arise out of a common order in appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 11 & 12/10 (M-IV) dated  19-3-2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents were found to have cleared the goods in excess of Rs. One crore in value during the period ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the refund of Rs. 8,342/- However, he also held that the respondents paid 25% of the penalty amount on the 31st day and therefore, they were not eligible for the concessional penalty of 25% and therefore they ought to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00139/- and accordingly, he adjusted the refunded amount of Rs. 8,432/- towards the penalty due from the respondents. The respondents filed appeals before the Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that in the light of the said provision, the date of receipt of the order i.e. 30-9-08 should be excluded for computing the period of 30 days and in which case the penalty stands paid on 30th day. 5.2 As regards the plea of unjust enrichment by the department, he submits that the payments made during the investigations were only deposits and the original authority confirmed the demand of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded." A reading of the above clearly supports the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the respondents that the date of receipt of the order deserves to be excluded. Once this view is taken, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from any infirmity on this ground. ....