TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the compounded levy scheme. It is observed that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority on the appellant is not is not sustainable as the cheque presented to the bank by the appellant was not dishonoured - Following decision of INDIA CEMENTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD [2002 (1) TMI 242 - CEGAT, BANGALORE] - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.450/2011 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared on Monday 2.8.99, it is found to be correct. Regarding contention of the appellant that it was not an intentional delay nor it is alleged that the appellant did not have sufficient balance in their bank account on 31.7.99, it is observed that it has not been disputed by the department. It, however, is considered that as the cheque has not been dishonoured by the bank, the date of presentation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bank on or before last date of the month is treatable as the date of discharging duty for the second fortnight under the compounded levy scheme. It is observed that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority on the appellant is not is not sustainable as the cheque presented to the bank by the appellant was not dishonoured. I, therefore, find that the impugned order in original is liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
