2013 (7) TMI 791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate JUDGEMENT Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The respondent are a rolling mill and during the period from December 1999 to March 2000, they were operating under compounded levy scheme under Rule 96 ZP. During each month of the period of dispute, there was delay in discharge of monthly duty liability by the due date which attracted equal amount of penalty in terms of Rule 96 ZP (3). However, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Vickrant Kackaria, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Hari Concast (P) Ltd. reported in 2009 (242) E.L.T. 12 (P&H) has held in clear terms with regard to the provisions of Rule 96 ZO (3), that though there is no limitation period for initiating penal proceedings for failure of discharge the dut....