TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty was payable under the compounded levy scheme – Held that: - , although the duty alongwith interest had been paid as far back in March, 2000 and the show cause notice was issued on 4.12.2006, i.e. after a gap of more than 6 years, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that where no statutory period has been prescribed for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appellant and the period of limitation would not be attracted, because the deposit of duty was payable under the compounded levy scheme. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had deposited the duty in March, 2000, a few days later than the prescribed period of limitation. It is pertinent to mention here that the duty was deposited alongwith the interest. The Department issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 16.9.2009. On the other hand, Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Standing counsel for the Revenue has submitted that since the penalty was being demanded under the compounded levy scheme, therefore, no period of limitation would be applicable. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, the following question of law arise for consideration in the present appeal: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
