2012 (3) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee. 2. The said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the Revenue questioning the order of the CESTAT, Chennai Bench, in allowing the appeal filed by -the assessee by following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 183 E.L.T. 351. However, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant, viz., the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was taken up for hearing and hence, certain vital factors were not brought to the notice of this Court. According to Mr. Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the assessee is entitled to pay excise duty on monthly basis, which factor was not brought before this Court. Secondly, for payment of such excise duty, a notice dated 29-6-2005 was issued ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned counsel would also submit that in any case for the belated payment, the Bombay High Court has observed penalty for ₹ 5,000/- only. 4. We have considered the above submission and heard Mr. T. Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent has not controverted the above submission by filing a counter-affidavit. 5. The order which is sought to be reviewed ....