2005 (7) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants have contested the correctness of the impugned order confirming duty and penalty against them as detailed therein. 2. The ld. Counsel has contended that at the relevant time the appellants were working under compounded levy scheme and the show cause notice dated 1-4-1998 was issued to them demanding differential duty for the period 1-9-1997 to March, 1998, under sub-rule (1) of Rule 96ZP....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ub-rule (1) of Rule 96ZP through S.C.N. dated 1-4-1998, but that SCN had not been adjudicated upon. The impugned order has been passed in pursuance to another notice dated 20-9-2001 wherein duty for the same period was demanded. When, the fact of non-adjudication of first show cause notice was brought to the notice of the Commissioner by the appellants, he disposed of the same by observing as unde....