2017 (11) TMI 691

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The appellant have filed the present appeal for the financial year 1998-99, challenging the Order-in-Appeal, confirming duty along with interest @ 18% per annum and imposition of penalty of Rs. 47,02,762/- under Rule 96-Z0 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a registered dea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 on wards 23059 11530 3. The modification was done by the learned Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 06/04/2000. The appellant was required to discharge their duty liability in two equal installments, 1^st installment to be paid by 15th day of each month and the 2^nd installment latest by last day of each month and the amounts paid were deemed to be full and final discharge of dut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....91,605/- be not demanded, along with interest and further penalty of Rs. 47,02,762/- as per Rule 96-ZO was proposed. Vide ex-parte Order-in-Original the proposed demands were confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant had preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to reject the appeal and confirmed the demand and penalty, along with interest. ....