TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. Appeal No. E/3434/2000-Mum is filed by M/s. Suresh Engineering Works against Order-in-Appeal No. SDK (1300) 152/M.I/2000, dated 25-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai. Appeal No. E/3329/2000-Mum is filed by the Revenue against the same order. The facts being the same, both appeals are disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting under this facility, it appears that they failed to give the required intimation to the Department. Show cause notice was issued alleging delayed payments for the months of September and October, 1999, demanding interest of Rs. 205/- and seeking imposition of penalty of Rs. 21,000/-. Annexure A showed the calculation of short payment. Annexure B contained the allegation that being the second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. Prayer is made to reinstate the quantum of penalty of Rs. 21,000/-. In the appeal from the assessees it was claimed that due to peculiar conditions the assessees were unable to fulfil their obligation. It is claimed that the interest stood paid even prior to the issue of show cause notice. Placing reliance on the same judgment of the Supreme Court which led the Commissioner to reduce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
