2013 (5) TMI 343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t: Shri Hrishikesh, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: Both the appeals, one filed by the appellant and the other by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has upheld the confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.3,00,020/-/ but has set aside the penalty. 2. As per facts on record, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is seen that subsequently the appellant's application field in May, 2001 seeking permission to discharge duty under compounded levy scheme, was rejected in October, 2001. It is not disputed that the appeal against said order of rejection was not accepted by the appellate authority and the duty liability was confirmed as Rs.73,39,424/- by another order of the Commissioner. The said order was also p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n monthly basis. It is also noticed that the appellants prayers for working under the compounded levy scheme was rejected only in October, 2001, As such in August, 2001, when their factory was visited by the officers, they were working under the compounded levy scheme and were discharging their duty liability accordingly. It is not the Revenue's case that such shortages were not part and parcel of....