2006 (12) TMI 518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appellant : Ravi Raghawan For the Respondent : A. Hore ORDER T. K. Jayaraman (Technical Member) In terms of the impugned order, the applicant/appellant company is required to pay the duty amount of ₹ 21,16,226 (Rupees twenty-one lakh sixteen thousand two hundred and twenty-six). The brief facts of the case are that the applicant/appellant company carried out packaging of refractory br....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Finance Act, 1984, reviewed the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 25-6-2004 on the ground that the penalty imposed is only ₹ 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand), and it should be equal to the service tax effected. Consequently, he has imposed a penalty of ₹ 21,16,226 (Rupees twenty-one lakh sixteen thousand two hundred and twenty-six) as per the provisions of section 78 of the Finan....