TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Hari Concast (P) Ltd. reported in [ 2009 (4) TMI 170 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] has held in clear terms with regard to the provisions of Rule 96 ZO (3), that though there is no limitation period for initiating penal proceedings for failure of discharge the duty liability by the due date, the penal proceedings mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compounded levy scheme under Rule 96 ZP. During each month of the period of dispute, there was delay in discharge of monthly duty liability by the due date which attracted equal amount of penalty in terms of Rule 96 ZP (3). However, the proceedings for imposition of penalty were initiated by issue of show cause notice after five years on 16/9/05. The Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner vide order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st (P) Ltd. reported in 2009 (242) E.L.T. 12 (P H) has held in clear terms with regard to the provisions of Rule 96 ZO (3), that though there is no limitation period for initiating penal proceedings for failure of discharge the duty liability by the due date, the penal proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period and it would be reasonable to adopt a period of five years in this regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
